Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CULAG (LOCHINVER) PIER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Culag (Lochinver) Pier: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Television Dealers (Supply of Information)

1. Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many television dealers have so far been fined for failing to supply information required under the Wireless and Telegraphy Act, 1967, since that Act came into force.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): Four, with one appeal outstanding.

Mr. Whitehead: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the case of Mr. Bernard Weather all, a television dealer, who announced on 14th June that he would go to gaol rather than submit to the fines levied on him? Is not that one small example of the extraordinary ham-handedness caused by the methods forced on the Post Office of collecting the present licence fee and checking on offenders? Is it not time we abolished this absurdly regressive tax and went over

to paying for public service broadcasting out of general taxation?

Sir J. Eden: This is a Question about evasion rather than about the future of the licence fee, as the hon. Gentleman recognises. I am sure all people know that they must obey the law of the land, and I pay tribute to the work of the dealers for the support they have given in this respect.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I hope that the Minister recognises the importance of the point made by my hon. Friend. Evasions, concessions and so on are bound up with the present licence fee and the method of financing, and we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the whole question of the financing of the BBC in the public sector.

Sir J. Eden: With respect that is another question, but if it will help the hon. Gentleman I remind him that I have answered that question before, to the effect that I am looking at all these matters.

Post Office Finance

2. Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he intends to seek parliamentary approval for increased borrowing powers for the Post Office.

Sir J. Eden: Not in this Session.

Mr. Huckfield: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should provide more money for the Post Office in order to improve the lousy telephone service that we have? The right hon. Gentleman gave me some figures which prove completely what he must know. Is he aware that the 3 per cent. failure rate for local calls and the 8 per cent. STD failure rate are completely inaccurate, and will he now go so far as to withdraw completely any kind of advertising of ISD facilities, which are a complete and utter farce?

Sir J. Eden: The question of borrowing powers does not have a direct effect on the forward investment programme. This is a matter for further consideration.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (1) if he will indicate the amount of interest being paid annually to the


Government by the Post Office in respect of borrowing to finance the deficit on postal services;
(2) what percentage of Post Office funds is devoted to postal debts and interest charges and what percentage devoted to increasing the long-term efficiency of the postal industry.

Sir J. Eden: In 1970–71 the postal business incurred interest charges of £18 million, 4 per cent. of expenditure on revenue account, including some £8 million for deficit finance. Capital expenditure to increase long-term efficiency was £34 million.

Mr. Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is more than just an immediate problem? In view of what he has said it is clear that the more funds that have to be returned in the form of interest charges and loan repayments, the less funds there are available for increasing and improving the long-term efficiency of the industry, and this cannot be unrelated to the previous Question which the Minister has just answered. Will he undertake to study this problem closely in order to resolve the difficulty in which the postal service is finding itself?

Sir J. Eden: There is some confusion behind the hon. Gentleman's question. The loss was £70 million in the year of the postal strike. Interest charges are not of dominating importance, because 75 per cent. of expenditure goes in labour costs and capital expenditure is not charged to revenue and, therefore, did not affect the loss in that year.

Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the high level of interest charges imposed by the Treasury causes concern throughout the Post Office? There is a belief that with high interest charges, which could increase again with the rise in Bank Rate, the financial problems of the Post Office will become more severe than they ought to be.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. I do not think that the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question follows. He will know from the 1970–71 report and accounts that the figure for interest rates in that year was about 6·8 per cent.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement

indicating when he hopes to conclude his discussions with the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation about the Post Office's current financial deficit.

Sir J. Eden: I have nothing at present to add to the replies I gave to similar Questions on 7th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 426.]

Mr. Morris: Bearing in mind the estimated shortfall of £180 million in the quinquennial financial targets for the Post Office, and bearing in mind the loss on the postal services of £72 million last year and an estimated £39 million this year, does the Minister expect that the Government will write off the Post Office's deficit? Does he envisage that they will propose economies in the postal services? Indeed, is the 5p post to become a reality?

Sir J. Eden: I cannot anticipate the results of discussions which are still in progress.

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he will state the levels of future investment in the Post Office.

Sir J. Eden: They will be included in this year's White Paper on Public Expenditure.

Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on this side of the House are hoping that the level of investment will be sufficient to bring about the ending of the waiting list for telephones? Is he also aware that we are also wanting to see the levels of investment go up so as to provide the best quality telephone service possible?

Sir J. Eden: I accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question and agree with him that that is clearly an objective, but I cannot give a firm answer to the first part of his question although it is certainly the intention progressively to cut into the waiting list.

Telephone Charges (Midwives)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to introduce special rates for telephone charges for state midwives on 24-hour standby duty.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. This is a management matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Molloy: That is a most discouraging reply, and makes Ebeneza Scrooge seem like Lady Bountiful. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the magnificent service which British State midwives give to the community as a whole? My investigations show that when they are on stand-by duty and have to be telephoned to rush somewhere to assist in the birth of a child, one of the things which perturbs them is that they cannot afford a telephone. Will the right hon. Gentleman please look at the question again and make a further, more enlightened statement later?

Sir J. Eden: I was not invited to comment on the quality of the service. That would be more appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services than for me. The provision of telephones is a matter for the Post Office.

British Broadcasting Corporation (Sponsored Programmes)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Television Act, 1964, to allow the British Broadcasting Corporation to show programmes sponsored by advertisers.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. I am not prepared to allow sponsored programmes on either BBC or ITV.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that sponsored programmes are already taking place? What is the difference? Gillette, John Player, Bass Charrington and firms such as these are sponsoring tournaments which are then shown at almost full length by the BBC. Surely all that is needed is a short announcement at the end saying "This programme was brought to you by courtesy of the sponsors." Could not the BBC raise funds in that way?

Sir J. Eden: The programmes to which the hon. Gentleman has referred were no doubt selected for presentation over the media by the broadcasting authorities because of the general interest that it was felt the public would have in seeing those activities. Sponsorship places the advertiser in the position of being able to influence the programme content. That

is not so in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has indicated.

Mr. Kaufman: In this context will the Minister draw the attention of the BBC to the fact that hon. Members on all sides of the House would strongly deplore the possibility of further BBC co-operation with Time-Life, which is rumoured, in view of the disgraceful way in which Time-Life has had influence in the content of programmes as well as getting splashes on the BBC?

Sir J. Eden: That is slightly another question, which has been dealt with previously in the House. My predecessor examined that matter very closely and concluded that the BBC was not in breach of its charter or agreement.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us deplore this constant sniping at the BBC? Sponsorship of sporting events is the modern trend. If there was no sponsorship there would be no such events.

Sir J. Eden: What is being sponsored is the activity, performance, the sport or whatever it may happen to be. It is not in any way influencing the choice of programme, or content of the programme, by the broadcasting authority.

British Broadcasting Corporation (Programme Content)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received in recent weeks concerning his powers under section 12 of the British Broadcasting Corporation Licence and Charter.

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what recent representations he has received relating to the exercise of his powers under the British Broadcasting Corporation Licence and Agreement; and what replies he has sent.

Sir J. Eden: None.

Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the obvious fact that he has no direct powers on programme content, on 2nd June there was a most disturbing programme on "24 Hours" on BBC television which gave a totally biased, unbalanced view of Concorde's future prospects and an assessment of the


Concorde aircraft was made in a knocking film in typical BBC style? Will my right hon. Friend look again at his powers and discuss with the Director-General ways of making BBC programmes on this and other vital matters more balanced in the future?

Sir J. Eden: I am aware that there has been a certain amount of disquiet about that programme and the way in which it was presented at that particular time. But matters of programme content are not for me.

Mr. Adley: My right hon. Friend may not have had any complaints about that programme but I certainly have. I she aware that from an examination of the transcript one can find eight specific and important errors of fact which were broadcast by the BBC in that programme? They relate, for instance, to cost, noise and facts about certain American airlines. Will my right hon. Friend use his powers to see that the BBC checks its facts from available evidence before putting out these programmes rather than taking convenient opinions which suit the case it is trying to put to the public?

Sir J. Eden: That is very much a matter for the BBC. I have no doubt that the corporation will take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Local Commercial Radio

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many applications have been received to date for the operation of local commercial radio stations within the terms of the new Act; and if he will publish the detailed terms under which applicants have been successful in obtaining a purchase.

Sir J. Eden: Only the Independent Broadcasting Authority, when it has come into legal existince on 12th July, will be able to consider applications for programme contracts. It will be the authority's responsibility to decide whether to make disclosures about numbers and other details beyond what is required of it by Section 10 of the Act.

Mr. Hamilton: I was aware that the Question was a little premature, but is the Minister aware that there is a fairly general welcome concerning the publica-

tion of the fairly stringent conditions which have been laid down by the Independent Broadcasting Authority as to the allocation of franchises? Will he give an assurance that before franchises are granted, and in view of the experience of the television authorities with Harlech and Thames in particular, he will undertake to publish well beforehand the terms on which franchises are applied for and that he will take steps to ensure that the Independent Broadcasting Authority insists that those terms are kept meticulously by the people who gain the franchises?

Sir J. Eden: As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, the authority is very much guided by the terms of the Act. Section 10 lays down the sort of information which is to be published by the authority.

Mr. Proudfoot: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the applicants are equal, there is nothing in the Act to stop the licences being distributed by public auction, in the same way as North Sea oil drilling rights were auctioned?

Sir J. Eden: It will be for the authority to determine the manner in which programme contractors are to be selected.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: For licences granted in Wales, will the Minister direct that a fair balance should be kept between the Welsh and English languages?

Sir J. Eden: No question of direction arises here. This is a matter for the authority.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if, in order that independent local radio stations should serve recognisable communities and be firmly rooted in their localities, he will now state when he intends to make an announcement about such a station to serve Newport and Monmouthshire.

Sir J. Eden: Whilst agreeing with the objectives for independent local radio as stated by the hon. Member, it will be for the IBA to consider which stations should follow those I have already announced.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister confirm that the proposed station for Cardiff will cover the whole of South-East Wales?


If that is the case, there will be a great deal of resentment in Newport and Monmouthshire, which is an area of a rather different character. While commercial radio is a retrograde step, nevertheless, if it is to be, we want our own station for Newport and Monmouthshire and we do not wish to come under the umbrella of Cardiff.

Sir J. Eden: The last part of the hon. Member's suggestion will certainly be borne in mind. We have announced that two stations are planned for that part of Wales and it is intended that they will be local stations. There is provision for up to 60 stations in all.

Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend take note that for those of us who represent constituencies in Essex to have either Radio London or Radio Ipswich to choose between is not satisfactory?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question deals with Wales, does it not?

USSR (Communications with Soviet Citizens)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecomunciations whether he has now looked further into the non-delivery and non-return of the prayer book sent from England to Master Leonid Slepak in Moscow.

Sir J. Eden: As I have explained to the hon. and learned Gentleman in a recent letter the prayer book was not sent by post, so that no question of interference with the mail arises in this case.

Mr. Janner: I appreciate not only the accuracy of that reply but also the Minister's kindly approach to this problem. As I have now received a bill for the delivery of the book, will the Minister be good enough to indicate where it was last seen and what the Government know about its whereabouts?

Sir J. Eden: I am afraid I cannot help the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Tilney: Is it not surprising that a great and apparently civilised Power should behave in this way?

Mr. Fell: Not in the least.

Sir J. Eden: That is a matter for the consideration of the Power concerned.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will protest to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics about the interference of telephonic communications from Birmingham to certain Soviet citizens in their country.

Sir J. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave on 10th May and 7th June to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) and suggest that my hon. Friend may care in the first instance to send particulars to the Post Office.—[Vol. 836, c. 1292; Vol. 838, c. 440.]

Mr. Chapman: I appreciate that, but is my right hon. Friend aware that Mrs. Irina Markish, who made a polite demonstration on a court at Wimbledon earlier this week, is not now able to contact her husband in Russia by telephone and that this has brought to light other instances of friends and relatives who are in a like position? Has not this brought to light a situation so grave that the Government ought to act for humanitarian reasons and make the strongest possible protest to the Soviet authorities?

Sir J. Eden: There is a difficulty here in the existence of Article 32 of the ITU Convention which allows any member country to cut off without notice any telephone calls which may appear to it to be a threat to its security or public order. It is a matter for judgment whether this falls within that category.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister consider that by any stretch of the imagination the cutting-off of these telephone calls could conceivably be because the calls are a threat to anyone in any way at any time?

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir.

Telephones (Waiting List)

Mr. Derapsey: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the total number of persons now waiting for residential telephones; and what is the average waiting period.

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office informs me about 211,000 residential applicants were on the waiting list for telephones at the end of May. In 1971–72 the Post Office connected 1·3 million subscribers to the network, two-thirds within 20 days.


Those placed on the waiting list had to wait on average about five months.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that a large number of people in my constituency have to wait nearly two years for telephones, in spite of the Herculean efforts of our excellent telephone manager, Mr. J. E. Dadswell? Is the Minister aware that this delay is apparently due to lack of cable? May I repeat my request for a factory to be established in Coatbridge and Airdrie to manufacture this cable and reduce the waiting period to a bare minimum?

Sir J. Eden: I am aware that two of the hon. Gentlemen's constituents are known to have been on the waiting list for a period of nearly two years. I agree with him that that is a very long time indeed. I know that every effort is being made by the Post Office to try to correct this position.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: If one sees advertisements daily which suggest that one should make great use of one's telephone, when one has been quoted nearly two years as the shortest waiting period—as happens to people in my constituency—one gets very cross with the telephone authorities and probably with the Minister. Will my right hon. Friend do his best to see that this period is cut during the next year so that people are not advertised at to use a service which they are longing to use but are unable to use?

Sir J. Eden: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. There is nothing more frustrating that having been encouraged to install a telephone and to find that one has to wait what one regards as an over-long period for its installation. The fact remains, however—and we must recognise this—that the Post Office has every year been substantially increasing the number of telephones installed. What it has not yet matched is the very much larger increase in the rate of demand.

Mr. David Stoddart: Will the Minister say to what extent the hold-up is caused by the delay in manufacturers providing exchange equipment?

Sir J. Eden: There are a number of reasons for the delays. They arise from under-estimation of demand in the first instance, from delay in the completion of

building work or the provision of lines, and from the very serious delays in the delivery and installation of exchange equipment. In the past all these have contributed to the build-up of the waiting lists and both I and the Post Office are determined to improve on the situation. No one is sitting back on it.

Mr. Idris Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency in this year of our Lord 1972 over 500 applicants for telephones have been waiting an interminable time and the excuse he gives has been given by his distinguished predecessors from time immemorial? It is time these weak excuses ceased to be given quite as regularly. May I respectfully suggest that from now on we introduce telephones into new housing estates in the way we introduce electricity, gas and water?

Sir J. Eden: In reassuring my hon. Friend I can only repeat that no one is the least complacent about the situation. The position is very much the reverse. I am as anxious as everyone in the Post Office and in the manufacturing industry to see a steady improvement.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: May I suggest to the Minister, as we suggested to his predecessor for many months, that the problem is basically that of investment? When does he intend to carry out the promise made by his predecessor to look at the whole problem of telecommunications investment anew and when does he hope that the delays will end?

Sir J. Eden: My predecessor anounced in the House on 1st March that the Post Office was to increase its investment programme by £100 million to help meet rising demand and also, incidentally, to help reduce unemployment in particular areas. I cannot forecast when this situation of over-long waiting lists will change. But I hope I can impress upon the House that no one is hanging back and that there is a concerted effort to try to improve on it.

Broadcasting (Review)

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he intends to announce the establishment of a committee of inquiry into broadcasting.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on the machinery for reviewing the future of broadcasting.

Sir J. Eden: I hope to be in a position to announce a decision shortly.

Mr. Golding: We are getting tired of the answer that the announcement will be made shortly. The Opposition treat television as of supreme social importance. We expect to have an announcement as quickly as possible that a full-scale inquiry is to be established by the Government in order that the future of television and sound broadcasting can be determined.

Sir J. Eden: I am aware of the hon. Member's views. I am sorry that he is tired. As soon as I am ready to answer the Question I will do so.

Mr. Mills: Can my right hon. Friend the Minister give any indication as to the form of the committee? It would be highly advantageous to have a fairly strong, yet compact, body, not dominated by any one group of individuals. Can he assure us that he will be able to look at the fundamental questions, such as whether the BBC's monopoly should be broken and the corporation dissected into smaller parts?

Sir J. Eden: I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. David Steel: How shortly?

Sir J. Eden: Before very long.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the Minister give us an assurance that because of the special factors which he knows exist in Wales in relation to the language, there will be an urgent and special inquiry in respect of broadcasting in Wales?

Sir. J. Eden: I have already taken note of the point, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, from having had the privilege of attending a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee.

Push-button Telephones

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office for push-button field trials to be undertaken in areas outside London.

Sir J. Eden: My information is that some trials are planned for areas outside London, and a general direction would not be appropriate.

Mr. Tilney: Is it true that one of these trials is in Manchester, and is not this another example of the central Government preferring Manchester to Merseyside?

Sir J. Eden: The answer to the last part of the question is "No". Decisions about trials are for the Post Office and I suggest to my hon. Friend that, if he has not already done so, he should make his inquiries there.

Mr. Lesile Huckfield: Is it true that the mechanism which the Post Office has adopted for the push-button system will not speed things up very much? Would it not be better to have the American system of push-button dialling which does speed things up?

Sir J. Eden: This is a matter for the Post Office which is planning its trials to discover the best system for this country.

Mr. Stainton: For the general education of the House, can my right hon. Friend the Minister explain what is meant by push-button field trials?

Sir J. Eden: It is an attempt to decide whether it would be easier for my hon. Friend to press a knob than to turn a dial.

Television Licence Fee

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what examination he has now given to alternative systems of finding the funds raised by television licences, in view of the evasion resulting from the present system.

Sir J. Eden: None, Sir. My hon. Friend may not be aware that at 31st March this year the estimated rate of evasion was 5·4 per cent. compared with 12·7 per cent. in January, 1966.

Mr. Loveridge: We must all appreciate the improvement in the rate of detection, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the system of licensing is a temptation to many people and that the resultant use of espionage vans is alien to our way of life and repugnant to most of us? Will he therefore consider an alternative method of raising money?

Sir J. Eden: This is a matter to which I have referred before. The future financing of the BBC will fall appropriately in the context of decisions to be taken about the period after 1976.

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will extend the limited concessions for refunds of television licences to provide for the unexpired portion of the television licence of a deceased person to be repaid to his executor.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. The law is that a licence is needed before a television set can be used at all. The fee is payable when a licence is issued irrespective of the period for which the licence is needed.

Mr. Marten: I realise that that is the law, but I want it changed. Why on earth should not the executors of someone who has paid for a service for 12 months, and who dies very shortly after, be reimbursed for the unexpired portion?

Sir J. Eden: The difficulty arises in trying to keep the system of licensing as simple as possible. There are about 18 million licences and if we provided special measures of the kind my hon. Friend suggests the system would be very complex and very costly to administer.

Mr. Marten: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the subject on the Adjournment.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many 5p concessionary television licence schemes are now in operation in old people's accommodation.

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is his latest estimate of the number of retired people who have benefited from television licence concessions.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many elderly persons at the latest available date were in receipt of television licences at concessionary rates; and what was the consequent total loss of revenue to the Exchequer.

Sir J. Eden: At 30th April, 1972, there were 160,211 retired people benefiting from the special television licence for old persons' homes. The approximate cost of the concession is £1·1 million. I do not know the number of separate schemes this involves or how many retired people living in ordinary accommodation benefit from the £1·25 concessionary reduction for the registered blind. Nor do I know how many other pensioners may be receiving help from local authorities towards the cost of their licences.

Mr. Huckfield: Does the Minister realise that this number is pitifully small when compared with the total number of old-age pensioners and that a great deal of upset and misunderstanding is caused by the drawing of the borderlines between those who get this concession and those who do not? Is it not time that we either gave this concession to all old-age pensioners or removed the charge for licences completely on production of the pension book?

Sir J. Eden: To give the concession to all old-age pensioners would be very expensive. There is another Question on the Order Paper about that. I am looking at the matter of anomalies with a view to seeing whether there is any possibility of making progress here. The anomalies arise simply because this is a difficult matter to resolve.

Mr. Costain: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this is a matter of very real consequence, and will he give more publicity to the terms on which licences are issued?

Sir J. Eden: The main way of helping elderly retired people is through the cash grant of the retirement pension—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and, as the House will know, this has been very carefully attended to during the past two years and substantial increases have taken place. I am sure this is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Harper: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that on 13th June lat year, in Standing Committee on a Private Member's Bill sponsored by one of his hon. Friends, an Amendment was moved and carried by seven votes to six to allow this 5p concessionary fee to all old people living on retirement pensions? In the name of justice, will he see that this is done?

Sir J. Eden: Hon. Gentlemen are very free to use the expression "in the name of justice", and I understand that they feel strongly on a matter of this kind, but I think they must recognise that the total cost of the pension increases and related benefits over the last two years has gone up by more than £1,000 million. This is the way to deal with this problem, because it leaves choice to individual beneficiaries.

Mr. Marten: While recognising that, if there are too many concessions on the licence fee, of course the licence fees would have to be increased, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he could make a start by giving a concessionary fee to old-age pensioners who are given supplementary benefit? This would be a limited and worthy group.

Sir J. Eden: If one were to pursue that line of reasoning one would have to recognise that there are people other than the elderly who draw supplementary benefit.

Mr. English: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many on this side of the House at least who appreciate the logic of his reasoning, but does he not realise that the 5p concessionary licence is in itself a source of immense irritation to old people not living in old people's homes but living in conditions far worse and who are almost totally dependent on television, for which they have to pay the full licence fee?

Sir J. Eden: Yes, I recognise the force of what the hon. Member says.

Giro

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, in view of the recent authorisation of the increase of Giro tariffs, whether it now remains his policy that the Post Office Giro shall be making a positive contribution to the overall finances of the Post Office within one year.

Sir J. Eden: The financial objective of Giro remains as stated by my predecessor in replying to my hon. Friend on 22nd March.—[Vol. 833, c. 1478.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. May we understand that, unless the Giro is making a positive contribution to the finances of

the Post Office by 1st July, 1973, its condition of decline, whether culpable or non-culpable, will be terminated?

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office is confident that a reshaped Giro can be made to pay its way within the five-year target period.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: When will the Minister refute these political and commercial knockers at Giro? Is he aware that the present financial difficulties facing the Post Office Giro would not have been quite the problem they are now had the Government had the courage to raise Giro charges at the appropriate time? Will the Minister take an early opportunity to do something to refute the allegations made by his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and his political comrade the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) in their constant denigration of an essential national service?

Sir J. Eden: The troubles that Giro has experienced have arisen very largely from the excessive optimism which accompanied its introduction during the tenure of office of the previous Government. I have no doubt that, now it sees its way clear ahead towards profitability, confidence in and support for Giro will grow.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What are the services which Giro provides at a loss which cannot be provided by other organisations at a profit?

Sir J. Eden: Giro will increasingly be providing its facilities for transfer of money at a profit.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: First, will the Minister help Giro by telling the House at some time the comparison between Giro charges and normal bank charges? Second, will he suggest that there should be a less complex system than that which operates at present? Third, will the Minister now reply to the question we have been putting to him for several weeks about Giro and Government Departments? Which Government Departments do not use Giro? Has the Minister asked them why they do not use it?

Sir J. Eden: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for Government Departments. As to the first


part, Giro has also been handicapped by the fact that it has been charging 1965 prices in 1972. It cannot be said to be competing fairly as long as its charges remain pegged at artificially low levels. This is why new proposals are coming into effect.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my right hon. Friend did not answer my supplementary question, I beg to give notice that I shall put it again in the near future.

Cable Television

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now announce the names of applicants for local cable television experimental relays; and which of these applications have been successful.

Sir J. Eden: I am not yet in a position to do so.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the Minister realise that many of us believe that cable television could be a great blessing or could do enormous harm? When considering these applications, will the Minister exercise the maximum scrutiny over possible foreign holdings in the potential applicants? Will he also, in considering the performance of the successful companies, when he places these before an inquiry if an inquiry is to be held, consider the possibility of the Post Office taking over this relay system as common carrier after 1976?

Sir J. Eden: The conditions of the licence are still under consideration. I am pressing ahead with this and hope to make an announcement fairly soon.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: When the Minister makes an announcement will he do something that he did not do last week: will he come to the House and make the announcement here instead of putting it in as a written answer, as he did with the question of local commercial radio?

Sir J. Eden: I am very happy always to respond to the convenience of the House.

Callboxes (Lost Coins)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now give a general

direction to the Post Office to ensure that callers who lose coins due to defects in Post Office call boxes be permitted to make calls up to the value of such coins on giving their names and addresses.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. Telephone operating procedures are the concern of the Post Office.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the scandalously high proportion of wrong numbers got from call boxes through no fault of the callers, and does he not feel that members of the public should not be reduced to waiting for stamps in repayment to be sent to them? They want the calls they dial in the first place, and if they do not get them they are not getting from the Post Office the service for which they have paid.

Sir J. Eden: These are interesting points which, if he has not already done so, the hon. and learned Member may care to refer to the Post Office Users National Council.

BBC (Chairman of Governors)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on the appointment of a new chairman for the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Cordle: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now announce the name of the new chairman of the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Fowler: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is now in a position to announce the name of the next chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation Governors.

Sir J. Eden: I have nothing to add to my predecessor's reply on 9th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills)—[Vol. 830, c. 1319.]

Mr. Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new chairman, when when appointed—it is hoped the announcement will be fairly soon—has a very important job to do in restoring public confidence in the BBC, and when making this appointment could my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that


the chairman's role is, as it is supposed to have been in the past, to act as the protector of the public instead of as an apologist for interests inside the BBC?

Sir J. Eden: The aim will certainly be to appoint the most suitable candidate available.

Dr. Miller: When the new chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation is announced will the Minister impress upon him the necessity for him to permit the regions to play their full part in broadcasting in respect of both the policy to be adopted by the corporation and the policy for the programmes which are sent out, and which ought to be national programmes sent out from regional areas? Will the Minister further ensure that the chairman is made to know that the British Broadcasting Corporation is not the London broadcasting corporation, but is for the whole of the United Kingdom?

Sir J. Eden: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's points.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the British Broadcasting Corporation is in fact the people's broadcasting corporation and not the private domain of those who work for it, and will he ensure that the chairman stands up for the people's rights and not merely for the rights of those who work within the authority?

Sir J. Eden: I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. J. T. Price: In case this matter be left in an untidy condition, since the dialogue has now started at Question Time, may I ask what possesses the Minister to sit there and allow smears of this kind to be put on the Order Paper? What evidence is there, for example, to enable the hon. Member to say "restore the confidence of the British public in the BBC"? That is to suggest that the British public have no confidence in the BBC, and I do not think that is true. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that while I and some of my hon. Friends may have individual criticisms of certain policies of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC has world confidence, apart from British confidence, and is superior to any other broadcasting corporation in the world?

Sir J. Eden: It is helpful to have the views of all members of the public, including those of the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Immigration Officers (Advertisement)

Mr. George Cunningham: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will remove the words "Britain, like the best hotels, clubs and restaurants, can't afford to allow everyone through its doors" from the advertisement for immigration officers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I have done so, Sir. These words will certainly not be used in future advertisements.

Mr. Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my thanks for that and make sure that future advertisements are cleared by someone other than an advertising quack using language appropriate to his profession?

Mr. Baker: The procedure is that when an advertisement first appears the form of the words is approved by the sponsoring Department. When there is a change, usually of a small nature, it is approved by the Civil Service Commission, but I have given instructions to the commission in future to refer to the sponsoring Department any change of this sort in copy for advertisements.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he has the whole House behind him in this repudiation which he has given to this House. It is obvious that there was an error on the part of the civil servant or whatever individual wrote the wording. The House will be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's reply.

BBC Programmes (Complaints)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many Government Departments have submitted complaints to the British Broadcasting Corporation Programmes Complaints Commission.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: None, Sir.

Mr. King: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is hardly surprising as the terms


of reference of the Complaints Commission are so narrow that at the last count out of 38 complaints that were made 36 were ruled as being beyond the terms of reference? Does not that make the Complaints Commission something of a farce? Will he use his influence in the Government to try to persuade them to follow the rest of Europe by setting up the sort of commission in which the public can have confidence, in which frustration is not evident and through which they can make complaints along reasonable lines and feel that their complaints will receive reasonable replies?

Mr. Baker: This Commission was set up by the BBC to deal with complaints from individuals among the public. In this Question, I am concerned only from the point of view of whether various Departments have complained to the commission. I personally do not think that is it a very appropriate commission for Ministers or Departments to complain to if they feel they are being treated less than fairly by one of the media. I think they can look after themselves.

Mr. David Steel: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us still think that the people responsible for dealing with complaints should be the chairman and the Board of Governors of the BBC and that we welcome the vigorous way in which the Chairman of the BBC has dealt with complaints?

Mr. Baker: I will draw the remarks of the hon. Member to the attention of my right hon. Friend who has responsibility in these matters.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the commission does exist and that if not many complaints come into it there cannot be any suggestion that if it were changed there would be any more complaints?

Mr. Baker: I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend responsible for these matters. My responsibility in the matter concerns whether individual Government Departments happen to complain to the commission. I am not concerned with the terms of reference or method of operation of the commission.

Recruitment (Boyle Report Proposals)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what estimate he has made of the effect of the Boyle Committee recommendations on recruitment to the higher Civil Service.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: There is little direct recruitment to the Higher Civil Service. The Review Body is now making in-depth studies of the groups covered by the Report, and no doubt one of the factors it will wish to examine is the longer-term effects on Civil Service recruitment of pay rates at the top of the Service.

Mr. Biffen: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am most grateful for that answer?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is aware that I am grateful that he tabled the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Government Expenditure (Rate of Increase)

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government propose to take to reduce the rate of increase in local government expenditure, with a view to minimising rate increases.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): My right hon. Friend will be discussing the rate of growth of expenditure with representatives of local authorities later this year in connection with the determination of rate support grant for 1973–74. At those discussions, full account will be taken of the need to minimise rate increases as well as of the increasing demands for education, personal social services and other local authority services, and the increased wages and other costs which authorities are having to bear.

Mr. Loveridge: Whilst I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, is he aware that over the past 10 years rates as a proportion of the national income have risen from 3·9 per cent. to 4·8 per cent., which represents


an almost intolerable burden on many of my constituents in Horn church, who, because they live in a largely residential area, pay even more in rates than do most other people?

Mr. Speed: I am aware that rates have risen in this way, but so also have the demands for higher quality of services and the support from central Government.

Mr. Blenkinsop: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to do nothing to discourage local authorities from going ahead with vital social developments in their areas, especially in areas of special need?

Mr. Speed: These matters will be discussed by my right hon. Friend later in the year.

Motorway Noise (Birmingham)

Mr. Kinsey: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider placing a 50 miles per hour limit on the new stretch of the M1–M5–M6 link way where it runs through the City of Birmingham, to overcome the complaints by residents of the noise nuisance.

Mr. Speed: I do not consider that this would provide a solution. But my right hon. Friend is urgently studying the noise situation here.

Mr. Kinsey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. I hope he will look very seriously at the suggestion. Something must be done to help the residents in the area. If my hon. Friend will look into the provision of some other form of noise baffle, we shall be most grateful to him.

Mr. Speed: The first thing is to determine the exact extent of the problem. I hope that local residents will take up our invitation in which we have said that we are quite prepared to go into their homes to conduct noise level tests.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Will the Minister bear in mind that while a speed limit may not be the complete solution—I do not suppose for a moment that it will be—it will at any rate contribute towards mitigating the great hardship that areas adjacent to the motorway in Birmingham are experiencing? Surely a limit of 50 m.p.h. or even 40 m.p.h. will make very little difference to the total time it takes the motorist to get through?

Mr. Speed: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. We must first determine the full scale of the problem. There is the very real problem of enforcing such speed limits at these sections of motorway. I would not wish to give the police an even more difficult task than they already have. These matters are all being looked into.

Council House Sales

Mr. James Hill: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what time period he is allowing for local authorities to respond to Circular 54/70 and the further circular dated 13th June, 1972, relating to the sale of council houses.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): Circular 56/72and the addendum issued on 26th June have re-emphasised the importance which my right hon. Friend attaches to this matter. The response of local authorities will be seen in the number of houses they sell, and we expect the 1972 total to exceed the record number sold in 1971.

Mr. Hill: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but he has not answered the Question, which concerned the time period he is allowing local authorities. I represent an enlightened council, which is readily selling council houses. Will my hon. Friend force councils which are not selling, which are not giving the opportunity to council tenants to buy their own houses, to do so? After all, that was part of our manifesto.

Mr. Eyre: We shall have to allow a reasonable time for local authorities to study the Circular, to take note of my right hon. Friend's views and to develop their policies.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman is at any time sending out a Circular further to those referred to, will he include a passage urging councils such as Southampton, where the waiting list for council houses is growing every year, to get on and build a few council houses?

Mr. Eyre: The Government's policy is to encourage local authorities to build houses to rent in cases of need. They will be assisted in that under the reforms in the Housing Finance Bill.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that before taking any action on the circular he will make a detailed survey of the numbers of applicants for council houses and their conditions? Does not he agree that it is wholly unrealistic to come to any judgment of the situation before examining the condition of scores of thousands of our fellow countrymen who are in dire need of public sector housing?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman should remember that it is the duty of local authorities to consider their local circumstances. Councils can and should both meet the wishes of their tenants who want to buy and meet the requirements of those who need houses to rent.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Instead of compulsory sales, would not it be better if the Government dropped their rent increase proposals, which are what make such sales of any interest? Is it not a fact that this is a gimmick, because until last year when the rent increase proposals were announced, sales were only 6,000 a year out of nearly 6 million council houses? They rose to 20,000 only when the White Paper on higher rents was published?

Mr. Eyre: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because the reforms under the Housing Finance Bill will enable local authorities, especially in those areas where there is real housing need, to deal much more effectively with those problems. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman underrates the genuine upsurge in feeling about home ownership. That is why people want to buy their own homes.

Football (European League)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Football League requesting it to participate in or initiate a league of European football clubs.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I have discussed a wide variety of topics with the football organisations, both formally and informally.

Mr. Ashton: Is the hon. Gentleman not denying the Daily Mirror report on 29th May of a private meeting in his flat,

when he tried to persuade the Football League to launch a European league? Will he give an assurance that he is not trying to introduce politics into sport by trying to persuade football supporters of the advantages of the Common Market? What answer did he receive from the Football League?

Mr. Griffiths: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when this country arrives in the Common Market it will find that British football was there long before it. I do not believe that it is a matter for the Government one way or the other to influence the football organisations in the management of their own affairs. However, I believe personally that with improved communications and the increasing rôle of television, some kind of European league is inevitable and that Britain can play an important part in it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: My hon. Friend will have noticed in the newspapers this morning that the trade unions have said that they are joining a European trade union league. If the football clubs go in and the trade unions are in, does not that leave the Labour Party very far behind?

Mr. Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend that it does not need the trade unions to remind us that the Labour Party is a very long way behind on Europe.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the Minister prepared to intervene to reduce the pollution being caused to our national life by overcrowded fixture lists, which are producing acute indigestion, at least on the part of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr)?

Mr. Griffiths: That is very much a matter for the football organisations themselves. I do not believe that it is a matter for the Government, which is exactly what the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has just been complaining about.

Housing Improvements and Disrepair Notices

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to strengthen the legal powers that local authorities have to enforce housing improvements and disrepair notices.

Mr. Eyre: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no evidence that the existing powers are inadequate.

Mr. Cox: Surely the Minister is aware of the long and complicated procedures that local authorities have to face in seeking court orders for houses in disrepair? Is it not possible for the Minister to introduce legislation imposing on landlords a time limit within which the work must be done, failing which the local authority should be able to do it? Will the Minister bear in mind that it is the tenant, not the landlord, who suffers from having to live in a house which the landlord will not repair?

Mr. Eyre: Local authorities have power to serve notices and to carry out the statutory procedures, and it is for local authorities to act in the interests of their local tenants.

Mr. Freeson: There are powers in the hands of local authorities, but will the Minister accept that some areas of our cities have special problems of disrepair and sub-standard conditions which local authorities are finding great difficulty in tackling? Will he consider the introduction of the special control area arrangements that were first mooted by the Milner Holland Report some years ago?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there are urban areas which have special problems, but the Secretary of State has not received representations from local authority associations about difficulties. In the event that representations were made, my right hon. Friend would, of course, carefully consider them.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress 22nd June].

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRISin the Chair]

Schedule 4

ENACTMENTS AMENDED

3.31 p.m.

The Chairman: We come now to Amendment No. 461, in page 34, line 42, leave out paragraph 9, with which it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 462, in page 36, line 32, leave out paragraph 10.

Mr. James Johnson: On a point of order. In no spirit of anger but purely for information may I seek your advice, Sir Robert? You will remember that on Clause 6 we were not allowed to discuss fisheries; neither have we been allowed to do so at any other stage of the Bill. This is an important matter to hon. Members who represent fishing ports and to many other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are involved in fisheries matters. Has the Leader of the House had any discussion with you as Chairman of Ways and Means about when it will be possible for the Committee to discuss fishery matters?

Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I have many questions on fishing to which I should like to know the answers. It is terribly important that we should have an opportunity to discuss these matters and I should like to know when we shall get one.

The Chairman: I am sure that many hon. Members of the Committee will know that the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has had many conversations with me in an attempt to see whether we can find a way to meet this difficulty. Unfortunately, try as we may, we have not been able to devise a way


to bring the subject into order on the Bill as it is now.
I am afraid that there is little I can do to help the hon. Gentleman, but if he has any new ideas about how we might introduce the subject I am prepared to listen to him. I am sorry that I have had to rule in this way, because I quite understand the feelings of hon. Members who want to discuss the matter, but the Committee knows the difficulty in which I am placed in trying to meet everybody's requirements. I cannot hold out any strong hopes to the hon. Gentleman that I shall be able to help him, but if I can I will.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. It has just occurred to me that it might be possible for the Government to put down at a later stage an Amendment on the question of fisheries which would allow the House to discuss that and perhaps other matters as well.

The Chairman: I am glad to say that is not a question for me.

Mr. Neil Marten: Further to that point of order. You said, Sir Robert, that if we had any suggestions we might put them forward. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is here, I suggest that, instead of the debate continuing in Committee next week—after all it can be continued at any time—the two days next week should be devoted to debating the Treaty of Accession, which has never been debated. We could then debate the outstanding issues.

The Chairman: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that that question might properly be addressed to the Leader of the House tomorrow after his Business Statement. It is not a question for me.

Mr. James Johnson: I am grateful for your kind suggestion, Sir Robert; possibly more fertile minds than mine will devise a means by which we can get over this difficulty. I see that the Chancellor of the Duchy has made a hasty entrance behind the Chair. I hope that he is conversant with what we are saying and that he will have conversations with the Leader of the House in an endeavour to meet our request. I speak

not in anger but almost in disillusionment, not in despair but in discontent that he has done nothing so far to assist hon. Members representing fishing constituencies, and I hope that he will make a statement now.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. There should not be any misunderstanding about there having been no opportunity to debate fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said that we did not debate the Treaty of Accession; but we had some general debates on Second Reading, we have had other debates at various times, and the Opposition have had the opportunity to allocate Supply Days for that subject. We had a long debate on fishing on 15th December on the Consolidated Fund Bill. If hon. Members care to look through Hansard for the last 18 months they will see that we have had a large number of debates on this subject, and there is no misunderstanding about the general position.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must surely know that to say that we had a debate on 15th December is particularly unacceptable to the Committee. We had that debate on fisheries before the treaties were published and before the text of the protocol and the chapter on fishing in the treaty were available to us. I am sure that on reflection the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that was not a good point. To meet the legitimate demands of both sides of the Committee something further is required.

Mr. Rippon: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. We had a debate on 15th December when the position which is reflected in legal language in the Treaty was stated to the House of Commons. As the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) will recall, we were asked to ensure that the treaty was not signed before the Opposition had an opportunity in January, if they so wished, to have a day's debate on fishing. In the event they did not so wish, because, no doubt, they felt they had had a sufficient debate on 15th December, but that is not a matter for me. That is what we understood the position to be. We also had


a six-day debate on Second Reading of the Bill which covered the whole range of matters.
I understand that hon. Members want to discuss some matters as frequently as possible, but the Bill has the limited objective of giving effect to the changes in our domestic law which are required to enable us to ratify the treaty.

Dame Irene Ward: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend, who sits for a constituency near mine in Northumberland, is interested in what I have to say. I have sent him a letter which I received from one of my trawler owners in which he puts forward a whole lot of new points. My right hon. and learned Friend will receive the letter tomorrow. May I ask whether, when he has had a chance to read it, he will ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to let me know when I may have a public answer to my letter, because there are important new points raised in it?

Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend will appreciate that we all receive a lot of letters. Happily, some of them raise new points of one sort or another. I assure my hon. Friend that as soon as I receive her letter it will be given high priority and replied to either by myself or by the appropriate Minister and she will be able to make that reply public. I hope that we shall have no difficulty in allaying the anxiety of my hon. Friend's constituents. If we do not succeed in doing that, I know that she will come back to the fray.

Mr. Shore: I think it is inevitable that we should begin to address ourselves to the Amendments which have been selected, and I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 461, in page 34, line 42, leave out paragraph 9.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) who is now leaving the Chamber. We should have welcomed the hon. Lady's support during the debate against the guillotine about eight weeks ago. The number of hon. Members who complain about the guillotine after having voted for it and added their name to the roll of shame—which is undoubtedly what that vote will even-

tually come to seem, even to those who voted for it—continues to surprise me.
It is a real matter of concern that important issues such as the fisheries agreement and that to which I shall address my remarks this afternoon—namely, transport policy—should be in the one case totally omitted and in the other reduced to a debate which, under the guillotine, has to end at 6 o'clock this afternoon.
I welcome to our debate the Minister for Transport Industries. We are today discussing for the first time one of the central policies of the Common Market and of the Treaty of Rome—namely, the common transport policy—yet we are to have only two hours in which to debate this important matter.
What we are seeking to do in these Amendments is to delete the references to transport which are tucked away in the Schedule. We are seeking to delete them because we believe that this is a classic example of the need for the Government to issue a separate statement, to have a separate debate, and to issue a separate Bill which will seek to enact the provisions of the Common Market's transport policy into the law of this land.
This is a classic example of the great error made by the Government in deciding not to have a harmonising Bill or Bills. We are faced with a two-hour debate on a tiny bit of a Schedule. That is the nearest that we can get to debating this matter, and I think that I can conveniently and simply demonstrate my point by referring, on the one hand, to the Bill as it relates to transport and pointing out to the Committee that the relevant Amendments start at the bottom of page 34 and go through to the top of page 37, while on the other—I hope that hon. Members will take note of this—there is this heavy volume of Community transport law which runs to about 297 pages. That is the match. The British Parliament is allowed to consider three pages of the Bill in 2¼ hours. The reality of the position is that we are importing into the law of this country 297 pages of European transport law.
3.45 p.m.
All that the Schedule provides is that there shall be Amendments to certain of our Transport Acts, in particular to some


of the provisions of the Transport Act, 1968, and to the Road Traffic Acts, 1960, and 1972, so that certain practices in relation to the minimum driving age, to drivers' hours and to the operation of international passenger services will be dealt with in our regulations in a way that will ensure that our practices coincide with those of the Six.
The greater part of these Amendments enact Regulation 543/69 of 25th March, 1969. I am not sure what "I" in Schedule 4 relates to. I am not sure which of the regulations are involved. I have a feeling that it probably draws upon a number of them, but the more substantial part of the Schedule relates to Regulation 543/69.
These are important matters, but all this comprises only a tiny part of the Community's transport policy. Of the rest, I think we must ask how it is proposed that we should bring our practices and policies into line with those of the Six, and here I should like to have the Minister's guidance in what is essentially an exploratory debate, although I shall come to certain critical points in a moment.
It seems to me that what is proposed in order to align us with the transport policy of the Six is roughly this: first that in due course we shall get a number of, orders—probably late at night—either under our existing Road Traffic Acts, which make provision for that, or under Clause 2(2) of the Bill. I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the use of Clause 2(2) as he saw it during this year and next and he was good enough to tell me what he expected.
In a written reply on 18th May there were a number of references. First, orders will be made in 1972 on motor insurance to cover compulsory insurance liabilities in other member States. I do not know anything beyond that, nor does anyone else. As for next year, 1973, there will be orders covering statistics of international movement of goods by road, a further one on the collection of information about transport infrastructure, and a further order on the discrimination in rates and conditions for the transport of goods. Those will be substantial orders, and no doubt if the Minister felt it useful for us to see them in draft form

the House could see them at almost any time. That is undoubtedly one way in which it is proposed to bring us into line with the Six.
The second way is that we shall get Ministers, particularly those dealing with the public sector of transport—when one considers railways, road haulage and the National Bus Corporation one realises that the public sector is a large one indeed—seeking to meet their new Community obligations by refraining to use the powers which they have, in relation to the nationalised transport industries, or perhaps simply using those powers in new ways.
I have in mind the statement volunteered in relation to the steel industry by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industy on Clause 2(2) at an earlier stage in our debates. If I am right in this, if the Minister is to impose upon himself, as it were, a self-denying ordinance in relation to the use of his statutory powers I hope that he will tell us so when he replies to the debate.
The third and main way in which we shall be aligned with the Six in transport—this relates to the main body of European transport law contained in this volume—onwhich I seek confirmation, is that it will simply take effect. It will become the law of this land in the main part from 1st January, 1973; or, if my reading of certain provisions is correct, some of the laws will come into effect automatically after three, six or even nine months from the opening date. Am I right in believing that, without being read, discussed, enacted or understood in any way, these new laws affecting transport in Britain will substantially take effect, without any parliamentary process having taken place, by 1st January, 1973, and not later than 1st January, 1974? I believe that I am right. If I am wrong, I hope the Minister will rise quickly to correct me.
So substantial and far-reaching changes will be introduced into our transport policies without these policies being discussed. I worry about that, because I fear that many people who will be affected, ordinary citizens who are employed in the transport industries, will not even know what obligations are or will shortly be expected of them. I say with great conviction that if the Community transport policy is as perfect as


the Solicitor-General believes the Bill to be, to enact it in this way is an insult to the Committee and is almost self-defeating in the sense that it will not be understood by those to whom it is addressed and upon whom the obligations are to fall.

Mr. Marten: The point the right hon. Gentleman is making is emphasised by the corrections which have been issued. There are three pages of corrections for the one document that the right hon. Gentleman waved in the air. The first reads:
Content lists refers to traffic in the first three agreements. It should read tariffs.
If we are passing that sort of legislation, God help this House.

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is right. As he has raised this point, I should like to supplement it. It is extraordinarily difficult—I am sure hon. Members on both sides will agree—to track down these Community laws and the dates on which they are to take effect in this country. The layout of the Treaty of Accession is such that the first volume contains no mention of transport, just as in the main part of the Bill there is no mention of transport. We simply find a few paragraphs in Schedule 4, to which I have referred. It is in Volume 2 of the Treaty of Accession that we find dotted about—I deliberately say "dotted about"—lists and headings of those Community laws which are to take effect in this country, the minor or major amendments which are being made to those laws, and, in addition, the operative dates when they are to come into effect. I cannot conceive of a more difficult way or a way more designed to baffle and confuse ordinary citizens and the people involved in the transport industries than that which is devised in the treaties and Bill.
If the Chancellor of the Duchy wants these European laws obeyed, he will have to find some way, in the first instance, of bringing them home and telling people about them and what is in them. Even if the policy were perfect, this would be a ludicrous way of enacting the common transport policy in this country. We ought to be able to see it as a whole. We ought to be able to have a major debate on its principles and then on the particular provisions of the Bill to carry it out.

But it is not perfect. That is obvious to everybody who has glanced at it.
In the few minutes which I am now going to take—I am conscious of the pressure of time—I shall put to the Minister a number of issues which these Community transport laws raise. One concerns the Euro-lorry. As we all know, agreement was reached last month among the Six on the size, loaded weight and, most important, axle weight, of Continental heavy lorries. The different maxima which now exist in the different countries of the Six will be replaced by a single European standard. That standard is to be based upon the 11-ton axle weight and the 40-ton loaded weight. Our own standards, our own maxima, are a 32-ton loaded and a 10-ton axle weight. It follows, therefore, that we must face the prospect of a substantial increase in the size of lorries upon our already worn and over-used road system in the years ahead.
What makes this to me and, I am sure, to many people in the country peculiarly offensive is, first, that to most people the existing maxima are high enough. There is hardly a person in the country who does not wish for a reduction in both the size and the number of these large, noisy, damaging vehicles, which blot out the view of other motorists, shake the structure of our houses in the rather narrow roads and streets with houses fronting on them, and spread noise and fumes throughout town and country. Moreover, I doubt whether there are many on the Continent who would not wish that a lower standard had been adopted.
So, once again—I say "once again", because I have in mind certain other matters which we discussed last week on which we have to adopt what everybody agrees is a less generous, less to be preferred Community preference system relating to developing countries—we have to harmonise with Europe and adopt a standard which, by general consent, is worse than our own practice and is one which we would not wish in any way to adopt.
What makes it even more maddening is that there is no urgency about it. It is a long protracted timetable. We cannot suddenly say to six, or, indeed, to ten countries which have been following different transport regulations that they


shall, as of next year or the year after, get rid of their present maxima and use new ones. It has to be done over a period of years. So we are planning now for a deterioration in our environmental standards which will only become effective by 1980. That is an astonishing thing for the Committee to contemplate.
I have yet another point on this matter. It is almost an impertinence that this matter of deciding the standards of the Euro-lorry, which has waited some 10 years in Europe for agreement and on which it is known that we and other applicant countries have strong views, should be brought to the point of decision a few months in advance of what the Government hope will be the entry date for Europe.
We all know that the Minister for Transport Industries—all honour to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks—strongly objected. It was good to hear a voice speaking for this country. My only feeling is that it is a pity the Minister was not able to make more speeches on the subject and sustain his objection, which I am sure is deep and conscientious, to this whole proposition.
4.0 p.m.
What worries me, and I believe, also worries the right hon. Gentleman, is the knowledge that this decision will be made—and it will be a decision that we shall have to accept—under the appallingly lax agreement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy and that, regardless of our own views and wishes, we shall have to accept the decision from the time we go in. If I am wrong and if at this stage we can still say "No" to the Euro-lorry and "No" to the new standards, I shall be delighted to hear it and shall at once withdraw what I have said. But if all we can do is to hope to mitigate the effect by trying to limit the routes on which they can run, it makes my point and it will be a great pity if this happens.
My second point of concern relates to the effect of Community law on another aspect of the environment; namely, the compensation code, a code which the Six are hoping to agree for those whose properties and welfare are blighted by major road construction. This is an important matter, and, clearly, our attitude to the European proposals will be greatly influenced by whether or not the

proposed European code makes more or less generous compensation than we do. If their compensation standards are higher we shall welcome them, but if they are lower than our standards and if it prevents the advance of our own practice of compensating people—not people in the direct path of motorways and the like but people whose whole outlook and environment is over-shadowed by new public works—in other words, if anything to which we agree will delay the possibility of improving our compensation arrangements for such people, it will be a sad matter indeed. I leave it to the Minister to develop this point since he will know far more clearly than we do precisely to which part of these many regulations he will wish to draw attention.
Thirdly, I turn to the question of State aids. This is of crucial importance in transport policy and has been the subject of many Acts of Parliament and even more debates. We have sought in the past to establish the principle of support for public service transport and to discover how far we should depart from purely market calculations; we have also sought to establish the right relationship between different forms of transport, particularly road and rail. We have spent a great deal of parliamentary time on these questions.
We have now not only to consider these traditional and difficult problems but to examine them in a new framework of Europe, in which the prime concern of the law-makers in Brussels is to prevent one nation State giving what the Commission believes to be undue, and, indeed, a distorted, advantage to its own transport undertakings. This is the subject matter of a major regulation—that of 4th June, 1970, 1107/70. It is bound to have considerable consequences on our own practices.
We have not had time to discover how this will affect our regional policy. This will be extremely important for remote parts of Britain. It is important that we should not be forced into a transport pricing régime which makes it even more difficult for firms in, say, Scotland or other remote parts of the country to be competitive because they have to impose the full and often costly transport charges. We have a system which involves the pooling of transport costs; indeed, a substantial part of our pricing policy is based


on a pooling of costs between one part of the country and another. I believe that there are special arrangements in this regard.
I am worried not only about the EEC Treaty in this respect but about the provisions of the ECSC Treaty, which lays down precise demands on transport costing in the movement of coal and steel. This means that we shall be forced to charge higher freight costs to our enterprises in distant parts of the country.
My last point concerns the other side of the coin of competition; namely, the attempt by the EEC to harmonise conditions of work in the road transport industry. This matter is dealt with in Item H of Schedule 4. We are required by 1976 to adopt Continental practices relating to rest periods, working hours and the like. We are further required to introduce the tachograph, which is a somewhat controversial device.
How far these matters are sensible is difficult at present to assess but any proposals, however sensible they might appear, will not be sensible unless there is an understanding and acceptance of them by the lorry drivers themselves and their trade union. The Minister would be very unwise—and I do not think he is unwise on these matters—if he did not realise that lorry drivers are men of great independence. One reason why people become lorry drivers is that they do not like being pushed around; they want to be themselves. They will not submit easily to inspection systems and devices unless they are persuaded that they will be beneficial to them and to their industries.
This underlines the importance of not legislating in these subjects in a hole-in-the-corner manner. We should have a frank, full and coherent public debate about future transport policy. We are being denied such a debate. It is this situation to which we are seeking to draw attention in this Amendment. I hope we shall persuade the Minister to say that he fully understands our object and will seek to persuade the Chancellor of the Duchy to come forward with a separate Bill covering common transport policy.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I welcome this debate on these important matters. The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has raised a

number of questions which should be fully discussed. We all agree about the importance of such questions as the limits on drivers' duty hours—though it must be said that no limit is imposed in the Community regulations—the age at which certain classes of vehicle may be driven, and various other matters. The Committee will note that eight hours is suggested in the Amendment as the maximum daily driving period compared with 10 hours at present.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Eleven hours.

Sir T. Beamish: There is also the question of the maximum distances which may be covered, the distance proposed being 460 kilos, roughly 280 miles.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Did my hon. and gallant Friend say "kilos" or "kilometres"?

Sir T. Beamish: I am attempting a short paraphrase, and it is obviously not what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) understands by the word. I often refer to kilometres as kilos.

Mr. Powell: I am surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend did not get in return something of a more substantial character.

Sir T. Beamish: I stand corrected. I shall refer to them as kilometres, and I only hope that at least my right hon. Friend will agree with my pronunciation.
These are all important matters, and I am glad the Committee has this opportunity to discuss them.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries is in a very powerful position this year. He is President of the European Ministers of Transport Committee, and he has taken advantage of that fact this year—he was very active last year as well—to ensure that Britain's point of view on all the matters raised in both Amendments is understood fully.
Broadly speaking, in my view the proposals that we shall have to incorporate into our domestic law are reasonable. I do not suggest that they would have been exactly in their present form if we had been founder members. I am sure that we should have had strong views to express. However, we can hardly


expect to join a club a good many years after its formation and find it exactly as we should like. Nevertheless, the proposals covered by the Amendment are acceptable, and, what is more, we should bear in mind that it will be possible to modify them without great difficulty. Some are already being changed in the light of experience. It is also important to remember that we are in an excellent position to ask for modifications.
If we were not to join the Community we should find that British lorries or passenger vehicles going to Community countries were subject to restrictive practices over which we had no control. Generally speaking, these are the non-tariff barriers, and I feel that throughout this Committee stage too little attention has been paid to the fact that if we were outside the Community British exports and movements such as those that we are discussing could and would be inhibited by these non-tariff barriers. The fact that we are members gives us a say at the centre, and I have no doubt that there will be all kinds of modifications. The fact that the Community is to be enlarged from Six to Ten means that all kinds of new and different aspects of these questions will arise.
Under paragraph 9 a very genuine attempt has been made over a long period of years to find common ground between the existing members in order to provide good working conditions in safety without unnecessary rules and regulations. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's influence, which is considerable, will be used to ensure that there is a free flow of road vehicles within the Community in this country and in the other Community countries with the minimum of red tape.
I see all these questions in the context of the common transport policy which it is being sought to harmonise within the Community. It is still in its very early stages. To hear the right hon. Member for Stepney, one would think that remarkable progress had been made. In fact, in 15 years very little progress has been made. These matters do not move very fast.

Mr. Marten: My hon. and gallant Friend is certainly right about that.

Sir T. Beamish: One of the bogies constantly put up by the anti-Europeans

is that we shall suddenly find ourselves having matters forced down our throats that we have had no opportunity to consider—

Mr. Marten: I wish that my hon. and gallant Friend would not use the expression "anti-Europeans".

Sir T. Beamish: I shall use it. This is a free country. I am allowed to use whatever phraseology I like. I was not meaning to be controversial—

Mr. Marten: Then name them. Who is anti-European?

Sir T. Beamish: My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) ought not to get steamed up about this. In the context of the European Community my hon. Friend is anti-European, and I can think of a great many more right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The right hon. Member for Stepney is against joining Europe on any conceivable terms. He is an anti-European as well. However, I have strayed away from the subject matter of these Amendments because of the fly that was put over me by my hon. Friend. I intended to use those words, and I meant them.

Mr. Marten: We shall argue about it outside.

4.15 p.m.

Sir T. Beamish: We shall argue about it everywhere—inside and outside.
I was saying that the right hon. Member for Stepney makes rather a bogy out of these matters. It is about time that we began thinking on Community lines, appreciating that we have endless opportunities to make our views known on regulations and directives of the kind that we are discussing. We have a large delegation under our permanent representative in Brussels which is constantly watching these matters. There are the specialist committees, one of which deals with transport matters, where my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries has made his views known. There is the Economic and Social Committee, where leading trade unionists concerned with safety on the roads, drivers' hours, the size of vehicles and so on ought to be making their views known instead of absenting themselves as they have done in past months. That has


been a great mistake. If we are to join, let us try to make a success of it. It is no good turning our backs on Europe. It is the duty of British trade unionists to enmesh themselves with European trade unionists in Brussels and elsewhere and to make known Britain's views about the subjects that we are discussing.
The Community is a slow moving vehicle. It has issued only a comparatively small number of regulations and directives on transport services. We have to incorporate those which are in force into our domestic law. Since I am not prepared to make a mountain out of a small molehill, I find them almost entirely acceptable.
I turn now to Amendment No. 462. As I see it, there are good reasons for exempting from British licensing control road passenger vehicles coming to the United Kingdom from other member States. Similarly, I am pleased to learn that our own vehicles on international shuttle services and regular services will be exempt from the licensing controls of member countries. The more freedom there can be in these matters, the better. Within the Community, frontiers must mean less and less in terms of trade and movement.
One benefit arising from the exemption will be very much to the advantage of coach trips to the Continent, which are being run on an ever-increasing scale. At one time, I was a director of a bus company which had a connection with this business—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I bet the hon. and gallant Gentleman never drove a bus across.

Sir T. Beamish: It was the East Kent Bus Company. It was a very good company, although the return on the capital employed was remarkably small and it was delighted when it was nationalised. However, that company used to run a great many trips from Dover and Folkestone to the Continent. The red tape and complications involved were remarkable, and it is good to know that it will be easier to run coach trips of this type in future and not have to cut through so much red tape.
I turn now to a subject which is of special interest to me. It is the quota

system affecting lorries. There is not much point in discussing lorry drivers' hours, passenger vehicles crossing frontiers without unnecessary problems and the other matters dealt with in these Amendments if the non-tariff barrier in the shape of the quota system interferes with the free flow of trade.
It is contrary to one of the basic principles of the Treaty of Rome that trade should be distorted. But it is distorted very seriously by the present quota system, as my right hon. Friend has admitted. This has very little to do with the Common Market. The quota system exists in any event. However, I look to the Commission and the Council of Ministers to sort out this matter.
In a very interesting interview that my right hon. Friend gave to The Times on 18th January he said:
The quota system, under which individual countries of the Six restrict the number of journeys by lorries from outside their borders, greatly embarrasses and inconveniences our hauliers, and we want liberalisation….The Six as a whole have yet to make a policy….Our entry will strengthen the numbers of those wanting liberal policies.
This is good news, and I believe it to be perfectly true.
I have had many complaints from my constituents. I do not have a great deal of industry in the Lewes constituency. Newhaven is one of the Channel ports, and, together with the town of Burgess Hill, there are probably 70 or 80 factories, mostly light industry. We are very much interested in road haulage in Newhaven. We look forward to getting some better roads because the access to our ports does not compare with the access to continental ports. Until we get some growth in the economy there will not be enough to spend on improving our roads.
I put a Question down on the quota system on 8th March to my right hon. Friend asking about the 1972 quotas for commercial vehicles permitted to carry goods to and through Europe, especially to France, Western Germany and Italy. I drew his attention to the fact that they fell very far short of the United Kingdom requirement. I was pleased with his forthright reply. He said:
I estimate that the 1972 Italian quota, which has recently been agreed, will only meet about half the genuine demand.


That is really quite scandalous. It is an altogether unnecessary and narrow national restriction. He went on:
The proportions for France and Western Germany are about three-fifths and four-fifths respectively. I am well aware of the difficulties caused by these restrictions and will continue to urge the need for liberalisation at every conceivable opportunity"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 326.]
I am pleased to note that the Community quota system is due to be reviewed before the end of this year, and I hope that the emphasis will increasingly be on multilateral quotas, not bilateral quotas. There is a big job of work for the Commission here so as to liberalise trade within the Community and conform with one of the basic principles of the Treaty of Rome. The Commission has already proposed that bilateral agreements should be regularly reviewed so as to match growth in demand. This is a serious matter, and I do not raise it in any way as an isolationist or from any narrow national viewpoint.
I am not saying that British goods should be carried in British vehicles or anything like that. I am saying that the present quota system is quite impossible, that we want more liberal trade and a freer movement of vehicles. I am confident that my right hon. Friend and the Government as a whole will use all their influence in this way.
I had wanted to say something about axle loads and lorry sizes because my constituency is being shaken to pieces by these colossal vehicles. Lewes is one of the most beautiful mediaeval towns in the country, and there is hardly a row of houses that has not been scraped by these vehicles on the route that they have to use. Until we are able to improve our road system we shall have to be much more active in restricting these enormous vehicles to certain roads.
Newhaven is a Channel port of increasing importance, and the road communications north and south are deplorable. There is a bridge in Newhaven which ought to have been pulled down about 50 years ago. Thank heavens, the bridge across the Ouse is to be replaced. Until that happens, because the port of Newhaven is on the east side of the river, these great vehicles, rather than use a thoroughly inadequate B road up the east side of the valley, are crashing their

way through some of the most beautiful villages in the country, places like Alfriston, which many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will know.
This is not really a Common Market problem at all. We are not members yet; this is normal trade being carried on with our neighbours across the Channel. This situation would arise whether or not we had applied to join. It is a serious matter, and we have to treat it as such. Our trunk roads are not adequate, even for the present size and speed of vehicles, and we shall have to maintain some restrictions. I am sure that the Government will be firm in insisting that this is not the time to raise axle loads or vehicle length, or overall loads. We shall have to keep the restrictions until we are in a position to handle larger vehicles. They are large enough already.
There should be much greater expenditure on our road system. Anyone who has been in Belgium recently—to Antwerp, for instance—must have been enormously impressed by the excellence of the roads serving it. Only 12 or 14 years ago Belgium was a poor little country. It has benefited enormously in terms of growth in gross national product as a result of joining the Community, as I am confident we shall. When we get some growth in the economy there will be more money to spend on our roads, and it is certainly badly needed.
This is a useful debate because there is barely a constituency in the country which is not interested in the subject. It is rather pathetic that there are only six or eight hon. Members sitting opposite, which has been the case practically throughout this Committee stage. They show an astonishing lack of interest in these important matters. Reading the newspapers, one might think that the Chamber was jammed and an enormous debate was taking place, with great enthusiasm on both sides. This is not true at all. To have more than a dozen hon. and right hon. Gentlemen present has been unusual.
I urge my right hon. Friend to use all his influence in the interests of greater harmonisation and liberalisation of transport in the EEC.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West): In following the extraordinary speech by


the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) I must say that I was not sure whether it was a Second Reading speech on the EEC Bill or a maiden speech dealing with his constituency. However, I understand that he has been here for some considerable time.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Where?

Mr. Orme: There were many contradictions inherent in the hon. and gallant Member's speech. I want to concentrate on the point he made about heavy lorries.
There is a good deal of concern in the country as further aspects of EEC policy are unfolded. The British people are beginning to have brought home to them the impact of this move. It is interesting how the Press has suddenly found out about the problem of lorries and how the EEC regulations will lead to an extension of the use of these lorries.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of the threat posed by an increase in the weight and size of these vehicles and said that the problem was here, irrespective of whether we were in the Community. I accept that the threat is here; but what he did not say was that if we join the Common Market the whole process, backed by these regulations, will be speeded up and our chances of controlling the lorries will be greatly diminished.
There is a conflict here between the needs of industry and the problems of the environment. In a heavily populated country such as ours we cannot go on developing roads to cater for lorries of increasing size. If we do so the country will be one vast "Spaghetti Junction." As a result we have to look for transport policies which can remove much of this pressure from the roads and transfer it, through a properly planned transport system, to the railways, the waterways and other means of transport. Those of us who have seen these large lorries operating in West Germany, Holland and other countries realise that once this sort of development is under way it is exceedingly difficult to stop it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Is the hon. Member supporting or rejecting the idea of a 40-ton lorry as a harmonised standard?

Mr. Orme: I am rejecting it. I should have thought, from the tenor of my

remarks, that it would be obvious that I was objecting to it.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is a little dim.

Mr. Orme: I want to deal with the top weight limits. In a small country like Holland, it is 50 tons. In Italy, it is 44 tons. At the other end of the scale, in Great Britain, it is 32 tons. Axle weight limits range between 13 tons in France and Italy and 10 tons in Britain, Denmark and Ireland. The recent meetings of the EEC Council of Transport Ministers agreed to a limit of 40 tons per lorry and 11 tons per axle, and to the concession that each member country would keep its own rules until 1980.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), I feel that what the Minister for Transport Industries said in the telegram that he sent was very creditable. He put forward to the EEC a British point of view. That has been sadly lacking on many of the major issues. The right hon. Gentleman stated some strong terms. He said that Britain would maintain a 10-ton axle limit and that any higher limit would necessitate £200 million being spent on repairing roads and strengthening bridges and there would be a pollution problem and a risk of damage to historic buildings. Historic buildings are important and I am all for their preservation. But there are many tens of thousands of ordinary houses in this country which are old and of poor fabric, in which people have to live until those houses can be replaced. Such houses would suffer considerable damage from constant vibration.
It has been said that we could restrict these lorries to certain roads. That is easier said than done. If that were done, what would it mean? It would mean that, for instance, through the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes and elsewhere we should have to create a super highways to channel these lorries between our ports and the main centres of industry. A concentration on the development of such highways would be tremendously costly as well as detrimental to the environment. Many people who drive along our main motorway, the M1, know how inadequate that road is now for the type of vehicles that are using it.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Cars.

Mr. Orme: Of course, many cars use that road. But one is constantly faced with long lorries capable of high speeds. One shudders to think of the type of lorry which will be possible in a few years' time. Many hon. Members will have seen the types of lorry which travel between California and Canada. Everyone will say, "In no circumstances would we contemplate having that weight, length and width of lorry on our roads". But we have come a long way from the average lorry we used to see to those on our roads now. I do not want to see in this country some of the lorries of Germany with trailers swinging along behind them. That point of view does not go against economic development, the movement of essential goods, or industrial growth. There are more sensible ways of using technology and means of transport than imposing this type of lorry upon our roads at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), has taken a great interest in this matter. He said on a number of occasions that on our roads at present there are probably lorries which are over weighted, carrying up to 40 tons. This matter is very much like having a speed limit of 30 miles an hour, when the acceptable speed becomes 40 or 45 miles an hour. In consequence, using my hon. Friend's argument, if one raises the limit to 40 tons, before one knows where one is, certain unscrupulous people will load lorries to 45 tons or 50 tons, and consequential vibration problems will arise.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Does my hon. Friend also take account of the fact that we have a totally inadequate number of weighbridges and a totally inadequate number of weights and measures inspectors? How can he possibly talk about enforcement of present standards? I am not praising the enforcement but pressing for more enforcement.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend will admit that on present standards of enforcement the regulations are being widely broken. I want to close the door. I do not want to open the door and, when everything has gone through, say, "We shall try to control it"
Much of this pressure for transport development, particularly in the EEC, is way ahead of the problems of the environment. Many of those who concern themselves with environmental problems have neither the resources nor the facilities to press these matters home. We are possibly further ahead than most Western European countries in our concern for the environment. Consequently, we should be taking a retrograde step if we just accepted these developments. The EEC is taking a retrograde step. Why should we join this rat race? Despite what the Minister said and the support for the strong and unequivocal manner in which he put the matter to the transport Ministers at Brussels, the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that by 1980, willy nilly, we shall have to accept the terms of the European transport Ministers. The Minister said that between now and then we must construct better roads and provide better facilities, and restrict these lorries to particular routes and so on. We have limited resources. I have often said that under a Labour Government, with all the cuts we got, the one major cut which was not put into force was on the road programme. One can argue about priorities. I am doing that at present. I do not believe that our priorities are to create roads to carry lorries of the size we are talking about when we need industrial development, full employment, more houses and economic growth.
Therefore, what proposals does the Minister have and what steps will he take to make the views of Parliament more forcibly known to the EEC Ministers? We are entitled to know what Britain's proposals are. The Amendments are sensible. They would remove the necessity to carry out the proposals in the Bill. I invite the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes, who showed such great concern, to join us in the Lobby.
This is an issue of paramount importance for this country. It touches on a vital aspect of our life and on the right of Britain to decide its own policy in matters of industrial development and environment. I hope that the Amendments will be carried.

Mr. David Waddington: This is proving a most interesting debate but I have my doubts about its


relevance to the Bill. The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) said the Government were in error in not having introduced a long harmonising Bill in which, Clause by Clause, was set out the obligations in the transport field which the Government would be accepting if we entered the EEC. Few of us have any doubts that if the Labour Government had been returned to power in 1970 and had introduced a long harmonising Measure, they would have been in the happy position of finding a Tory Opposition not prepared to go back on what it had been saying before the election. The long harmonising Measure would have gone through the House like a dose of salts. We all know one of the reasons why a shorter Bill has been introduced.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) was right when he said that we would have to face the problem of the Euro-lorry even if we did not join the Common Market. All of us acknowledge the importance of international trade and most of us desire more of it. Most of us acknowledge the necessity of an increase in our trade with Europe. I am sure that the most dedicated opponents to entry into the Community must say at some time that they look forward to increased trade between Britain and Europe.
Everyone should acknowledge that it is desirable to aim for European standards on vehicle weights. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made a most interesting contribution and I do not quarrel with anything he said about the peril to the environment which can result from heavier lorries on our roads. But he was less than fair to the Community when he said at one stage that it had taken a retrograde step in arriving at the European standard of 40 tons laden weight, when in the very next sentence he acknowledged that the limit represented a substantial reduction in some EEC countries. To acknowledge that fact is to acknowledge that 40 tons is a compromise. The Europeans are trying to arrive at an agreed international standard and even if we were not seeking entry into the Common Market we would still be trying to arrive at that agreed international standard.

Mr. Shore: May I explain the point my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was making, although

he is quite capable of making it for himself? He was saying that it would be a retrograde step for Britain to adopt this standard even though it might be an improvement on some of the standards already operative in the Six. That is the point to which the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) should address himself. Why should we adopt a standard that we and people in Europe believe to be a worse standard than the one we already have?

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTONin the Chair]

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman must make his own speech and indeed he has made one already. I noted carefully what the hon. Member for Salford, West said. He was making the point that I repeated, not the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. The arguments advanced by the hon. Member were perfectly fair but at one stage he did say that the Europeans had taken a retrograde step. I pointed out that that was not right because the Europeans had arrived at an agreed international standard which represented an increase in loaded weight for some countries and a reduction for others.

Mr. Orme: rose—

Mr. Waddington: I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment. If Britain is to aim for increased trade with other countries, whether with European countries or across the Atlantic, it must surely aim for a reduction in non-tariff barriers to trade which were mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes.

Mr. Orme: The EEC proposal would mean a reduction in lorry weights in two countries but it would mean an increase in eight out of the enlarged Community of ten countries. Does the hon. and learned Member believe that to be retrograde?

Mr. Waddington: I have not worked out the batting average or what would be the average reduction, bearing in mind the degree of transport facilities in each of the countries concerned. I do not believe that is relevant to the argument. But the fact remains—and I would have thought that any hon. Member


would acknowledge it—that if we are to agree on international standards to try to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade there must be give and take. There must be compromise, and that is precisely what has happened on the Continent. The question of standards for all weights will have to be faced whether we stay out of the EEC or go in. Everyone would acknowledge that whatever happens we must try to arrive at agreed international standards because if we do not the opportunities for expanding trade will not materialise.
The only other matters I would mention are also concerned with the right hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks. He referred en passant, if I may use European expression, to the possibility of the compensation code in force within the Communities being less generous than the compensation code in this country. That is a matter with which I would certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to deal. I know of no evidence to suggest that the compensation code would be less generous in the EEC. There are many warts on our own compensation code and we have nothing to be proud of. Many improvements are necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that entry into the Community will mean that we shall have to conform to its drivers' hours regulations. I seem to remember when the Transport Act, 1968, was introduced that we were told by the Labour Government that one of the principal justifications for it was the need to improve road safety in Britain by restricting drivers' hours still further. Yet we find now that the Europeans are imposing harsher standards than we impose. Apparently they are aiming for eight hours a day rather than ten hours a day. I do not know which way hon. Members on the Opposition benches are arguing. They do not seem to be arguing in the same direction as that in which they were arguing in 1968. They have always paraded their interest in road safety and I cannot see how they can now say with a straight face that we should not embrace the European regulations because they will fetter and bind us because they are more stringent than those in force in this country. I see nothing to fear from our obligations

in this regard. I see nothing to fear in the fact that we must fulfil those obligations if we enter the Community.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman knows anything about the subject. It is not driving time that the regulations are about but non-driving time. The whole point about the European regulations is that they do not specify what non-driving time is. Theoretically a driver may be limited to eight hours' driving time, but there is no limit on non-driving time.

Mr. Waddington: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and he will no doubt make it when he makes his own speech. What I am saying is amply justified by what the right hon. Gentleman said about the tachograph. For years and years Labour hon. Members have told us how keen they are on road safety. But when the Europeans introduce a device to enforce the regulations for road safety more rigorously than they are enforced in this country, they say, "We cannot have that." They say that that is an argument for not entering the Community, and that is the end of their case.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: It is with mixed feelings that I follow the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), because obviously he has misunderstood the whole point of the regulations on drivers' hours. I recognised his brief, because I have heard those words before, but I could not quite trace the source.
I was even more perplexed by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), who at one stage seemed to argue that we needed more and bigger lorries provided they were not in his constituency. Apart from the omission to pay tribute to his predecessor, his speech had the hallmarks of a very good maiden speech.
I am in some disagreement with some of my hon. Friends. It is not the first time we have disagreed on transport policies, and it is not the first time we have argued about the consequences of the 1968 Transport Act. We spent about six months in Standing Committee on that Measure, which was far less comprehensive than the part of the treaty and articles we are discussing, but today we


have less than two hours under the guillotine. Hon. Members on both sides who have protested about the critical curtailment of the rights of the House and Parliament's sovereignty should bear in mind the comparison.
I cannot subscribe to some of the Piltdown Man transport policies sometimes echoed from my side of the Chamber. I do not wish my speech to be understood as being dogmatically in favour of heavy lorries. If I see headlines in the newspapers tomorrow morning saying that the Member for Nuneaton supports heavier lorries, that is not the main stress I want to make. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will not mention my hon. Friend."] I am working on that. I want to stress the facts of the matter and put the whole argument about 40 tons gross weight in perspective. I know the accusations I shall hear afterwards. May I stress that I do not receive a regular cheque from the Road Haulage Association, that I am not a director of a road transport firm, like some hon. Members on the Government benches. I am the son of an engine driver, so my interests in transport are pretty catholic. I cannot help feeling that hon. Members on both sides who have talked about the question of 40 tons gross weight have not put the facts in their true perspective, and that is what I should like to do.
If we properly restrict the activities of heavier goods vehicles and increase the stringency with which we enforce standards, I believe that an increase to 39·3 tons—that is what it would be, for we are talking of 40 Continental tons—could improve our environment, because it would result in a reduction in the number of heavy goods vehicles. I should like to give some figures produced by the Road Research Laboratory. Between 1965 and 1970 we had a reduction of 0·6 per cent. in the number of heavy goods vehicles operating on our roads, from 638,000 to 620,000. Since operators' licensing was introduced as a part consequence of the 1968 Act in 1970, we have seen a further reduction in heavy goods vehicles of 56,000. Therefore, there is every evidence to suggest that with an increase in the size of lorries and an increase in productivity it is possible to obtain a reduction in the number of lorries. We have seen it already.

Between 1965 and 1970 the goods carried increased from 68·8 thousand million tonne-kilometres to 83·1 thousand million tonne-kilometres, but the number of vehicle-kilometres, which is the measure of distance that lorries travel, increased only from 18·20 thousand million kilometres to 18·93 thousand million kilometres. In other words, there was a fairly substantial increase in the freight tonnage carried by road but a very small increase in the number of vehicle-kilometres required to carry that traffic. Far fewer lorries were doing far more work.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness): I see the argument the hon. Gentleman is developing, but would he say—this is put as a non-argumentative point—that there might be a possibility that the development of larger vehicles, and therefore greater individual carrying capacities, would accelerate the movement of goods away from rail to road, resulting in the end in more vehicles on the roads?

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is a point to which I wish to come later. An increase in productivity is possible with an increase to 39·3 tons. The payload of a 40-tonner is about 27 tons. The payload of the present 32-tonner is only 22 tons. In other words, 27 32-ton lorries could be replaced by only 22 40-tonners. If the weight were raised to44 tons, which I am not advocating and which I would not support, 34 44-tonners could do the work of 46 32-tonners. I stress most emphatically that I am not here to support some of the limits that have existed on the Continent, but just to try to set the matter in its perspective. Apart from that, it would be possible with the increase envisaged to have a 1,000-ton traffic flow carried by 37 to 38 vehicles of 40 tons rather than 45 to 48 vehicles of 32 tons.
Those are figures which substantiate over and over again that with an increase in vehicle size, an increase in pay load and an increase in productivity we could have a quite severe reduction in the number of vehicles using our roads. Another example of the increase of productivity is the fact that many road haulage rates have stayed pretty well the same since the Second World War, mainly


because the size of vehicles' carrying capacity, and hence productivity, has increased.
I therefore find very good reason to suggest that an increase in vehicle weights only to the extent so far agreed would ultimately involve quite a drastic drop in the number of vehicles on the road.
I also want to stress that we are talking about an increase in the length of lorries of only 0·5 metres, which is about 19·7 inches. Most important, as the Minister will realise, is that that is necessary only to carry 40-foot containers. If he is not to come up to the 40 tons gross and the additional 0·5 metres, he must recognise the logic that we shall not be able legally to carry 40-foot containers in this country. If we do not go up to 40 tons gross and do not have the extra 0·5 metres, I hope he will introduce legislation to say that the carriage of 40-foot containers in this country is illegal. If we do not go up to that weight we are denying ourselves all of the advantages of the 40-foot container which is now coming into standard operation in Europe. If the Minister does not go up to the weight which has been agreed in Europe, he will logically and legally have to ban 40-foot containers.
5.0 p.m.
The most important point is that about 40 per cent. of the carriage of goods by road is of goods influenced by weight. We are dealing primarily with things like steel, canned goods, and even whisky and wines. These are particularly the goods which, with an increase in weight permitted, could be carried with much higher productivity achievements. In other words, basic requirements like steel and canned goods would be particularly affected and improved in cost per ton carried by the increase under discussion.
The figures I am quoting come not only from the Road Research Laboratory but also from some research which is currently being undertaken at the University of Leicester.
The Minister has several times quoted the fact that we shall damage our roads to the extent of about £200 million if we go up to these figures. The 1970–71 report of the weights and measures inspectors says that in the checks the inspectors carried out in that year on a totally inadequate number of weigh-

bridges, in very difficult conditions, often with weighbridges which were not suited to heavy goods vehicles, they found that 18 per cent. of the vehicles were overweight.
Apart from that, I am sure that the Minister knows that in Britain in the past, and even now, many containers which have gone by road have not been weighed. In other words, the fact that something has got "30 tons" painted on it does not mean that it has 30 tons in it. Therefore, how can the Minister say that we have not already got 40 tons gross moving by road? I suspect that the Minister knows very well that because we do not weigh contents very often, and because about one-fifth of the number of lorries that are weighed are found to be overweight, he cannot say that we have not got 40 tons gross moving already.
Consequently, how can the Minister say that we shall require £200 million for the additional damage which will be caused if these increases are allowed? We have that weight on the roads already. The Minister still says that we need £200 million for the additional damage. I should like to know more about the figures which the Minister has often quoted. Apart from that, if the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the damage from heavier axle loads—I recognise that there will be damage—what about all those railway bridges of the 1880s which must be being used daily by diesel locomotives with axle weights well in excess of 11 tons? If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about arched bridges—this is where the controversy arises—I suggest that he asks British Railways how heavy their axle load limit is.
I come to the point which I am sure the Minister recognises and takes near and dear to his heart. We have already had a situation where, because our regulations do not permit vehicles as large as those on the Continent, foreign manufacturers have captured 15 per cent. of the British domestic heavy goods vehicle market. It is estimated that if we do not have the increase in regulations which the Minister has been arguing about, but which has been agreed, in five years' time about 30 per cent. of the British domestic market could be captured by foreign manufacturers.
I recognise that the present limits on power-weight ratios, particularly the 6 brake horse power limit which the Minister introduced, are completely inadequate. If we are to talk of a sensible power-weight ratio, we have to go up to at least 8 brake horse power, probably up to 10 brake horse power. If we are to have higher gross ton limits, we must also have increased power-weight standards, better enforced exhaust emission standards, and better braking standards.
If the Minister is kidding himself that we can exist on the basis of existing power-weight legislation, whatever happens—whether we have the increase or not—he must tighten that up and increase the brake horse power per ton, at least to German standards and, I hope, even higher than that.
Hon. Members on both sides have made the point about designated roads, a point which has caught the eye of the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, and other bodies. If there are designated roads, there must be trans-shipment points. If there are trans-shipment points, the cost of packaging and distribution will be increased. I have seen some valuable estimates carried out by one of the public bodies to the effect that the cost of trans-shipment could be as much as £2 per ton. In other words, if we are to have trans-shipment points and designated routes, we must be prepared to pay an increase in distribution costs.
Another point which has been made by hon. Members on both sides, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)—I do not disagree with him with relish—is as to the possibility of transfer to rail. Though we could transfer some back to rail, as Sir Reginald Wilson, when he was Chairman of the Transport Holding Company, used to say time and time again, many such transfers are uneconomic. When Dr. Beeching was given his brief to make the railways pay, he estimated that only 90 million tons of road-borne freight was suitable for transfer to rail. That is less than four years' ordinary road growth.
Hon. Members should also bear in mind that a fleet of about 26,000 lorries—that is, less than the reduction which has taken place in the past couple of years—could carry the total tonnage which is carried by rail. That reflects

the dominant position that road haulage already has and the junior position that the railways have. I do not suggest that it is an ideal allocation of traffic. It is certainly the allocation that has already been achieved in Britain.
During research which I conducted at the University of Leicester before I came to the House of Commons, when we did a project in the Transport Development Unit into the allocation patterns in Birmingham and the Black Country, it was not possible to fault so much transport managers' allocation between road and rail. In other words, we could not find many reasons in many cases for a shift back to rail. All that we could find were some effective reasons for suggesting that transport managers had not allocated accurately between their own transport and public carriers.
In other words, although there may be a case for a serious re-examination of the allocation pattern within the road sector, it is very difficult to criticise heartily the allocation pattern between road and rail based upon the research in which I was involved.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Surely it is a matter of controversy that the overhead costs as between rail and road are very different. It cannot be said that the present pattern of distribution as between the two in terms of transport is ideally suited, unless it can be shown at the same time that the costs of road and rail transport are on equal terms, which I suspect is not true.

Mr. Huckfield: I am willing to agree with my hon. Friend that Britain should have transport on the basis of égalité des péages, which is equality of the two forms of transport in their taxation burden. My hon. Friend knows that most road users are paying more than they get back. British Railways' rate burden and fuel tax burden is not in the same kind of ratio as that of the road user. When my hon. Friend compares the track costs of road and rail, I am sure he will find that the present economic penalties of rail transport would increase if the railways paid their full economic track costs.
I return to the Schedule, because the point of my union is very important in this context. What I fear is that if some of the attitudes expressed by some of my hon. Friends here this afternoon are


accepted we shall find this country in relation to the EEC becoming a transport backwater, a transport backwater of lorries of what I can only call "tip and turn" shunting, unless the right hon. Gentleman stresses our case with much more fervour than he has done hitherto.
The next point is in response to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). What is important is not the driving hours which the European regulations restrict, but the non-driving time. It is quite possible for a European driver to work all hours in connection with his lorry provided he is not driving it. What the Transport and General Workers Union is concerned about is the complete lack of definition of non-driving but on-duty time. We are moving from a very defined situation under the Transport Act, 1968, to a very undefined situation under the European regulations. Far from a big and significant improvement in working standards, as they stand at the moment the European regulations are a drastic reduction in standards, even if they could be enforced.
Another thing my union is concerned about is: if we are to have this sudden reduction to an eight-hour driving day, what would be the effect on productivity deals for four days of 10 hours? There have been some very good agreements negotiated by the Transport and General Workers Union, and they have achieved a significant increase in productivity, and improvement for the drivers; but we could have a drastic curtailment of productivity in this country under the regulations, and we could be very severely hampered.
I hope the Minister will not suggest that we should improve productivity by allowing sleeper cabs in this country, because one thing the Transport and General Workers Union and the lorry drivers do not like and will not tolerate is sleeper cabs. While unions on the Continent may be campaigning for bigger sleeper units in their cabs, unions in this country will not support them at all. I hope that in the negotiations the Minister will certainly stress very firmly indeed that we are not to have the kind of "kipping-up" outside major cities that takes place all across the Continent of Europe.

Mr. Orme: I am following with great interest what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he not see a contradiction in what he is saying? He condemns the lower standards for drivers and for sleeping arrangements in the large lorries, but he has been arguing that we should have larger lorries. There seems to be a contradiction here.

Mr. Huckfield: I am sorry, but my hon. Friend does not quite understand the point.

Mr. Orme: I do.

Mr. Huckfield: We are talking about the longer articulated lorries, not about any enlargement in the size of the prime mover. We are talking of the enlargement or increase in weight of tonnage which a trailer carries. These are quite separate things.

Mr. Orme: I understand that.

Mr. Huckfield: Another point I want to stress is about the tachograph. Whereas the German unions may have their own reasons for suggesting the introduction of the tachograph, the British lorry driver has the tradition of being "a knight of the road". He likes to get down the road and be trusted to do his job. Unless we are careful we shall be faced with a situation where pretty well everything he does from the time he clocks on till he clocks off at night will be measured on the clock.
I wonder whether the Minister would like to have one of these clocks in his car. I do not mean the car driven by his driver. I am asking him whether he would like to have a tachograph in his private car, and I hope he will answer that question, because I am sure that he might give the lorry drivers a little bit more enthusiasm for the tachograph if he would not mind having one of these clocks in his cab.
What I am very much afraid of is that with the sleeper cab and the tachograph we shall reduce our lorry drivers to mere "Euro-battery hens". The European lorry driver watching his tachograph, at the end of his shift, climbs on to his bunk, gets down to kip; the alarm wakes him up; he does his shift; and then he goes back on to his bunk. Is he a knight of the road? The British lorry driver is a knight of the road.


Under the regulations that we are talking about he will be a battery hen. I hope the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling there is about this.
I hope the Minister realises, too, that if we are to enter into these agreements the British lorry drivers will get a proper subsistence allowance when they are working on the continent and it will have to be a much better one than the less than two quid they have now. I hope the Minister will say to his friends in the Road Haulage Association, "Let us have a decent allowance for a night down the road."
What I want to say above all is—and I am sure the Minister realises this—that it is no good talking about raising standards unless we can enforce them. I am very sad, in a way, to say this, but we are one of the few countries which is or will be in the Common Market and which can enforce its own regulations. I am sure the Minister knows about the legendary Italian motor bike police who will turn up, wave you down, inspect the wagon, find 36 faults, ask for a fine of 36,000 lira, and, when one asks for a receipt, disappear down the road at an equally rapid rate of knots. That is the kind of enforcement there is in some Continental countries. We talk about harmonisation. Let us talk about the harmonisation of enforcement, too. Otherwise we shall be one of the few countries in the Common Market which will be doing the enforcement of these rules and regulations.

5.15 p.m.

I am sorry to have to detain the Committee, but I have not talked on the Bill very often and I shall probably not get another chance to do so, and it is not often that I get a chance to get information out of the Minister, except at Question time. So I hope he will reply to some of the points I have tried to put to him. I hope it is understood that my speech is not to be construed as advocating or insisting upon heavy goods vehicles, but as seeking to put the 39·3 tons gross in perspective. If we are to have 39·3 tons gross the Minister will have to bear in mind that we cannot shift 39·3 tons gross unless we have the drivers, and that the drivers will have to be paid more for moving bigger loads. I hope, too, that he will bear in mind that British transport policy should ensure that the

British transport industry gets a fair share of the European transport cake and not become merely a European transport backwater.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): If the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) will forgive me, I will not for the moment deal with most of the points he raised, but I should like to start my speech by saying that I have no evil intention in my mind, at any rate at the moment, about sleeper cabs. The hon. Member asked me whether I would want to have a tachograph in my car, and the answer is most certainly I would, although I do not know who on earth would want to read it. If I should want any advice in obsering my activities, perhaps I could have some fairly large scales in my office to measure the volume of paper by which I am constantly inundated.
We have had a very interesting debate. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), who introduced it with such courtesy, will forgive me if I say that not all that has been said has been all that relevant to the issue about whether we should or should not join the Common Market.
On the question he raised of the European Community's secondary legislation, I think he was making a mountain out of what is already a rather mountainous book. Merely to wave large books about does not carry with it any proof that inside the books there is much of a load of embarrassment for those who take part in the transport industries of our country. Rather the reverse. I think I am entitled to remind him that had the application put forward by the Administration of which he was a member succeeded, we should have had exactly the same problem of accepting the regulations which were already part of Common Market law. Much of the transport policy of the European Community is still in the formation stage and for that reason the sooner we join the better so that we can increase our influence upon transport policy.
One point raised by the right hon. Member for Stepney, which has been raised from time to time and has been a source of misunderstanding, concerns motor car insurance which it is thought will be a great handicap and a source of arid expense to British motorists. The


purpose of the directive is simply to obviate the need for the issue of, and the time-consuming frontier checks on, insurance green cards between member States. The directive secures that by requiring a motor insurance policy issued in any member State to provide cover in any other member State against the liabilities which are compulsorily insurable there. In other words, it will considerably aid the motorist and not impede him. There is no reason to expect a heavy increase in premiums. Neither by its terms nor in its effect is any harmonisation of the level of insurance premiums provided.
The question of drivers' hours and tachographs raised by the right hon. Member for Stepney and the hon. Member for Nuneaton must and will be the subject of detailed consultations with the trade unions. Of course I understand the anxieties of drivers about having this device put in the cab. I am always a little doubtful who will read the mass of data which will be available. Nevertheless, I accept that there are anxieties about it with which we must deal. I have on several occasions talked to trade unionists about this, and I shall continue to do so.
I hope very much that trade union leaders who have anxieties on this point, whether or not they suppport in principle our joining Europe, might occasionally take trips to Brussels to make known their views and to influence their European colleagues. This would be a sensible and, from our country's point of view, a desirable tactic. I am sure they will not mind my saying that.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The Minister seems to be enunciating a weird and new constitutional doctrine. Is he saying that British trade unions ought now to make their representations to Brussels instead of to him? Is he saying that he is no longer important?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman is doing his best to ruin a rather good speech by such an asinine intervention. I am suggesting that it would not be unhelpful if trade union leaders from this country were able to make a habit of fairly close contact with their opposite numbers in Brussels and Europe so that the views which they hold so strongly about what is necessary in transport

policy can be shared by their opposite numbers in Europe—no doubt some do.
I come to the vexed question of the Euro-lorry, otherwise known as the killer lorry, the juggernaut and all kinds of pejorative phrases—

Mr. Orme: The European mechanical monster.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman can always be relied upon to supply another adjective without difficulty or inhibition.
I went to Brussels not long ago and also to Luxembourg, where I had an agreeable talk with the Chairman of the Council of Ministers when it is sitting on transport matters. In talking to him and to M. Coppé, who is the member of the Commission responsible for transport affairs. I endeavoured to make clear the views of our country on this difficult subject. Within two days of my visit to Brussels there was a meeting of the Council of Ministers at the end of which no decision was made but the Council reached what it called an orientation, an approach—not even a common approach. I have no doubt that there is great mystique here. The Council reached a complicated orientation so that the members could all march together.
On dimensions and weights, the Council reached the point of wanting a 40-ton maximum overall weight and an 11-ton maximum axle loading. The discernible difference between a vehicle of an overall weight of 32 tons, as we have at the moment, and 40 tons is very small. What is important is the axle loading. The French have had the high figure of 13 tons for axle loading, as have some other European countries, whereas we have had 10 tons. The Community orientation has come down to 11 tons.
The right hon. Member for Stepney mentioned the position of the acceding countries and how near is our accession to Europe, and I take the point. I have had recently very close and agreeable conversations with the other three acceding countries whose position is, if anything, stronger than ours on this point. The next process is consultation at ambassadorial and official level and thereafter consultation at ministerial level. That means that the views of the four acceding countries have to be taken into account. People often make the mistake of talking about the Common Market as


if it were a great monolith inside which there were no differences of view. That is far from the case.
If I may consider without impertinence the position of Germany, it is, like us, on the outside fringes of the Community. Germany will provide the north-south axis of transport. In the past the Germans have had an axle loading limit of 10 tons. I hope very much that the Germans, and perhaps the Dutch, will come to the view when faced with our detailed arguments that from the point of view of their roads, bridges and old buildings it would be better for them to adhere to the limit which they have had in the past. I very much hope that our views will prevail on a point on which I personally feel very strongly.
We should try to reduce the level as far as we can from the 11 tons which the Community has reached at the moment. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that many people on the Continent would agree; I think a lot would. I have pointed out that throughout Europe there is a unique and historic legacy of buildings which may be gravely damaged. We must share a common concern, not only in this country but in Europe as well, that such efforts should be protected by every means that we can find.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way he has conducted these discussions, but is it not a fact that we are discussing a regulation that will confront us in the foreseeable future? Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea when it is likely to happen? Obviously it will not be in the next few months.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me. Perhaps I should have started by saying that these regulations will not become fully effective until 1980 for international traffic. There is contained in a rather complicated orientation of the Six some complicated stuff about compensating vehicle manufacturers inside the particular countries. It is difficult for me to deal with that matter at length here, but it will be an added source of difficulty in arriving at a complete endorsement of the orientation which the Six have currently arrived at.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Would it not be much more sensible if each country decided on the limitation which was most suitable to its own conditions, as has been done hitherto, apparently without difficulty?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, if we wish to inhibit trade.

Mr. Jay: It would not.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman says that it would not inhibit trade, but I venture to suggest, without going into the matter at length, that commonly accepted international standards of vehicles would be an enormous convenience not only to the manufacturers but to their users. From the point of view on enforcing regulations it would also be a great deal simpler.
I was particularly grateful and touched when the right hon. Member for Stepney said that I should have made more speeches. I cannot recollect when that sort of remark was last made to me. I am deeply moved by the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I cannot help feeling that it would be a great convenience if the right hon. Gentleman would use all his great influence to get me a few extra pairs so that I could spend a little more time in Brussels doing exactly what he is asking me to do.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about State aids in transport and support for publicly owned industry.

Mr. Shore: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves from the Euro-lorry question, which is of great importance, the important point, which we all want to get clear, is that the Six should know that it would be resented greatly in this country if any attempt were made to issue a regulation or a directive, whatever it may be, in the intervening months before, as the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends hope, this country enters the EEC. We should then be in the position that we were in over fish, with all the complications, absurdities and disadvantages which followed.

Mr. Peyton: I made it clear in Brussels that I was under considerable pressure in the House of Commons on this matter. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for lending force to that. It is a matter which I have been particularly


at pains to make clear to the Six. Any suggestion that there has been an unseemly row or bad temper is certainly unfounded. Nevertheless, I have endeavoured to make the meaning absolutely clear and then to make it clear again.
On the question of State aids in transport, as I think the right hon. Gentleman put it, and particularly the matter of support for our publicly-owned industries, there are some who think that to support publicly-owned industry is to sin against the light. We need not go into that argument. If it is a sin, it is one that is widely committed on the Continent of Europe. There are countries in Europe which do even more than we do to support and prop up the railways. I am advised forcefully on this point that the only changes that would be required of us would be procedural changes of a minor character. I do not want to mislead the Committee, but I am satisfied that that is the case. Should it turn out not to be so, I will make clear to the House that the position was different from that which I had supposed.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to deal with harmonisation. There is always the argument between those who wish to liberalise, as we do, and those who say that harmonisation on tax, regulations and the rest must be a condition precedent to liberalisation. I take the opportunity of saving to the right hon. Gentleman that I regard the unnecessary regulation of transport as a menace. We wish to see transport carrying goods and fulfilling its rôle in trade in as uninhibited a fashion as possible, and not restricted by stupid rules which are terribly difficult to enforce.
I need say no more about drivers' hours and tachographs. I accept that this will be a matter of full consultation. The matter of drivers' hours is complicated. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton on the difference between daily driving hours and daily duty hours. That is something which I know is of importance to his union and one of which we shall not lose sight.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) kindly referred to the fact that I have the honour—I hasten to say it is only by rotation and not by merit—of being the current

president of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport. The Conference is a forum which affords a useful opportunity to Ministers of countries outside the Six to put forward views. It has been useful on the questions of noise, emission, road safety and the rest. It has been a useful forum for those who are not Members of the Six to put forward their views with the Six present and listening.
My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the need, to which I have referred, for the free flow of road vehicles. He went on to deal with the question of quotas. He is right in pointing out that quotas are nothing to do with our entry into Europe. The worst form of quotas are imposed bilaterally and the Commission seeks to substitute multilateral quotas which will be considerably less odious. I have said publicly on a number of occasions that I regard a quota system as an abomination. It would be the desire of this country to get rid of such artificial and unnecessary restrictions.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes referred uniquely—

Mr. Orme: He did not stay very long.

Mr. Peyton: My hon. and gallant Friend referred—

Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Member made derogatory remarks about this side of the Committee.

Mr. Peyton: We all know that the hon. Member would never allow himself to make a derogatory remark about anyone. When we find the hon. Member following such a strict code of conduct, then my hon. Friends and I will succumb with some surprise.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes has fully earned my salute, which I shall still try to get out. My hon. and gallant Friend was unique in referring to the Amendment. Your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Alfred, called an Amendment and my hon. and gallant Friend went so far as to refer to it. Such an historic achievement should not go without salute.
I have already dealt with what was said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) on the subject of heavy lorries in answering his right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is


no lack of concern on the part of either the British Government or, I understand, the Governments of the other acceding countries.
Route restriction, which is not entirely concerned with the Common Market, is, as has been pointed out by hon. Members, complicated and not very easy. We have embarked on a three-to-four year programme of research and examination of this intensely complex problem. Difficult as it may be, if we are to preserve narrow city streets, city centres, small country lanes and villages from violation by vehicles which have no place there, I see no alternative to a sensible policy of restriction on routes. I am sure that industry has the statesmanship and broadmindedness to accept this proposition, too.
The hon. Member for Salford, West referred to the need to protect the environment and suggested that we are ahead of others in Europe. Comparisons are known to be odious, but there is growing concern both here and in Europe about protecting the environment. That is why, in pressing our arguments, I feel we have behind us a great weight of public opinion in all countries.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) quite rightly touched on the point, which I made just now, about agreed international standards being essential if trade is not to be impeded. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the compensation code. I am not aware of anything in the European legislation which inhibits our freedom of action, which remains a purely national matter.
There is nothing to be lost by having the widest possible consultation on the important subject of road safety. I hope that increasingly, both here and in Europe, there will be a growing awareness and consciousness of the obscene slaughter which we tolerate as part of our daily routine on the roads and that we shall together manage to stem this horrible tide.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton, after a fascinating autobiographical glimpse, which he followed by the revelation that he was not always in perfect harmony with his colleagues—a situation in which I find myself from time to time—made some interesting comments on this problem and put into perspective the rôle of

the heavy vehicle about which, I agree with him, some people have tended to become hysterical. It poses a serious problem, but we should see it in perspective. The hon. Gentleman produced certain figures and made a notable contribution to the debate.
Concerning the 40-ft. container, we are free to use that already. The question is how heavily it is loaded. I am sure it would be unrealistic to suppose that we could stay outside when the Six—perhaps not until they are the Ten—reach agreed standards.
The question posed by the hon. Gentleman about axle loads on railway bridges does not seem particularly appropriate as those bridges were designed for loads of a completely different character.
I do not think I need go into the question of trans-shipment, but I accept that it is part of the problem of route restriction.
The debate has afforded an opportunity to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to ventilate some of their anxieties about what happens on roads here. It has also washed over into the wider area of the Continent of Europe. Having responsibility for transport arrangements in this country, I hope that our quick entry into Europe will enable us to play a more effective rôle than hitherto in influencing policies which in any case will vastly affect our future.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The usual charm and sometimes wit of the Minister has meant that I have less than 15 minutes in which to sum up this very important debate which encompasses the scope not of one major Bill but of half a dozen.
Article 74 of the Treaty lays down the framework for a common transport policy to which this country will be subject in future, and Article 84 suggests that this will extend not only to rail and road, which we have discussed today, but in future to sea and air traffic.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) touched on the Treaty of Paris, Article 70 of which deals with the European Coal and Steel Community and the pricing of transport relating to the movement of raw materials and finished goods made from steel. The Minister for Transport Industries did not


make any comment on that matter. I understand that that provision—there is not time to quote it—will reorient a great deal of the pricing policy of transport for our steel industry. Hon. Members who have been here in the last two or three days will know how important that is, particularly in our peripheral regions of Scotland and Wales.
No mention has been made of the advisory committees which will advise the Commission on its duties concerning transport. OJ25/509 tells us that the Transport Advisory Committee gives advice to the Commissioners; we also read that it is not representative of any Government opinion and that the experts appointed to it sit as individuals and cannot be sacked by the Government because they are not doing the job they were put there to do. Therefore, we shall inevitably be entangled with something of the Brussels bureaucracy.
I come back briefly to the question of lorry weights. With his characteristic charm, the right hon. Gentleman told us rather lamely at the end that he hopes our views will prevail. That is all we can do. I fear that in future Minister after Minister will come, if not between now and January if the Bill goes through then in future years, with much the same lame tale. I fear, however, they will not be able to put such a tale so well as the Minister. That is the least I can say about it. The larger axle weights—another ton on each four or five axles on a lorry—will increase possible vibration, certainly in towns, on sewers, drains and bridges already under stress.
The studies by the Road Research Laboratory so far published have not been decisive. They have not been widely publicised in regard to the difficulties which will ensue for public authorities. The Minister admitted that designated routes—and I half expected him to announce his policy in this debate—involve some severe difficulties, as does the matter of enforcement. Enforcement of rules will be important because of the likely effect on our roads of these Euro-juggernauts.
Therefore, although in his usual way the right hon. Gentleman has amused us and said he would do his best, that is all he can do because, if the Bill goes

through, the power will no longer be with Parliament. And I fear that Parliament may have even less power in other respects.
The Minister said that he knew of no way in which the compensation code for our motorways could be affected. I wish to draw attention to regulation 2598/70, page 137, in Part 13 of the European Communities' secondary legislation. We there find an annex to the regulation which sets out quite clearly the EEC's views. It is concerned with the right use of capital and this is part of the idea of the Community, namely, to make sure that it does not spend more than it needs on transport infrastructure. Annex 1 in regard to transport infrastructure uses the phrase:
…in so far as such routes and installations are necessary for the circulation and safety of traffic.
The annex then says:
The road infrastructure consists of the following items: land, road works prior to paving…
and also refers to many other matters.
Anybody who has been concerned with the building of motorways will know that the question of a compensation code is a hot potato for any domestic government, and indeed has been a difficult issue for governments of both complexions. If we are to be subject to a compensation code which is less liberal than we in this country might have demanded, then it is perhaps significant that the subject appears to have been taken a little lightly by the Minister today.
Another matter which has been looked at by the Community is that of road pricing, which is referred to on page 279 of the same volume. It has looked at the possibility of introducing under the common transport policy
a system of charging for the use of road infrastructure in urban areas and as regards the principles of such a system and the means for putting it into effect.
And I am not saying that we should introduce road pricing on entry into the Community, but I believe that position should be looked at. Once again this will take away powers from our Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) spoke of the concern about these matters among people in transport. He mentioned the eight hours worked on the Continent,


which does not include non-driving time. He did not, however, mention figures which I have been given by the Transport and General Workers Union showing that drivers' wages on the Continent are significantly lower than those paid here for the same amount of work; moreover their basic hours are rather higher. In this country the basic working week is 40 hours, whereas in Italy it is 46 and in Germany 48 hours. It must be remembered that overtime begins only after the basic time has elapsed. Therefore, the question of the total number of hours worked varies between the system in this country and that on the Continent.
In view of the guillotine, I have not time to discuss hours of duty, return times, tachographs and productivity deals or to explain the complications in labour relations which will be involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney has already mentioned the fact that lorry drivers are notoriously independent. From what I know of the industry there will be a great deal of difficulty in industrial relations in forcing any particular regulation on the men who work in the industry. If there is difficulty with the trade unions and the lorry drivers, then let the Minister take the responsibility. It is his Government who are taking this leap into Europe, without perhaps looking at some of the implications which go deep into our family life and our traditions and which affect the way in which our industries have grown. I venture to suggest that the transport industry in Europe has developed in a radically different way from our own transport industry. This means that people s attitudes and habits are different. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, who is here but who has been silent, knows that in the end it is not what the law says that people must do, but what people consent to do. In this respect there will be great difficulty in the future.
The Minister made light of the question of grants to public services. This subject is covered by Regulations 1191/69, 1192/69 and 1107/70. It may well be that, as the Minister said, this will involve only a change of procedure, but the following important phrase is used in the regulations:
We terminate all obligations inherent in the concept of the public service".

We have gone some way towards that concept already, but this is not to be mandatory. Are we to get rid of all our concepts about public service?

Mr. J. H. Osborn: rose—

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) voted for the guillotine and, since I have only three minutes left, I have not time to give way to him. This involves the whole question of who is to judge what is an adequate transport service, since we see in the regulations the phrase:
…to ensure the provision of adequate transport services.
There is no guarantee, particularly in view of the attitude taken to capital and many other disturbing attitudes, about transport policy as a whole.
I wish to quote from a journal called European Community for the month of January, 1972. In an article headed "Coping with City Traffic", we see this astounding statement:
To make public transport more efficient and more attractive to the public, the undertakings which provide services will have to reduce the high deficits on their operations.
That statement gives the impression that, in order to make undertakings more attractive, authorities will have to reduce the deficit—presumably by charging high fares. Admittedly this is written not by a Commission but by Dr. Walter Labs, but it puts a question mark on a subject with which the Minister has dealt somewhat lightly.
We have of course dealt with the subject of transport in the Amendment, but I believe that one of the great scandals of the Bill lies in the fact that two Schedules contain the only transport matters in this piece of legislation. It has already been said that in normal circumstances these matters could well amount to two or three major Bills. The Chancellor of the Duchy may not agree with that statement, but these matters will not be dealt with in the same way as if they were part of separate pieces of major legislation which would be given the normal Second Reading, Committee and Report treatment. Because this matter is being dealt with in such an inadequate way, I ask the Committee to vote for the deletion of these Schedules.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: There is one minute left before the guillotine falls. The hon. Gentleman addressed the Committee for 15 minutes and the debate has contained little reference to the subject matter of the Amendments which are before the Committee. If I had had an earlier opportunity to participate in this discussion, I had intended to suggest that Parliament should develop a procedure in which we could debate the various issues more logically when we enter

the Common Market. Unfortunately, we have not been able to debate the Amendments. I had a speech which would have enabled me to discuss them. I very much regret that we are going wide of Amendments on the Order Paper. Is it necessary to have this vote at all?

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 213.

Division No. 251.]
AYES
[6.0 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hardy, Peter
Milne, Edward


Baxter, William
Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moate, Roger


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William


Bidwell, Sydney
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molyneaux, James


Biffen, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Huckfield, Leslie
O'Halloran, Michael


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Janner, Greville
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pendry, Tom


Carmichael, Neil
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pentland, Norman


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
John, Brynmor
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Probert, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Rankin, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgfield)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A.(Whitehaven)
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sandelson, Neville


Deakins, Eric
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Small, William


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Evans, Fred
McGuire, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert



Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
McMaster, Stanley
Taverne, Dick


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maginnis, John E.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tomney, Frank


Foot, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Freeson, Reginald
Marsden, F.
Urwin, T. W.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Varley, Eric G.


Golding, John
Marten, Neil
Wainwright, Edwin


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)




Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Watkins, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr, James A. Dunn and


Wellbeloved, James
Woof, Robert
Mr. Ernest Armstrong




NOES


Adley, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Normanton, Tom


Atkins, Humphrey
Grylls, Michael
Nott, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Onslow, Cranley


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Batsford, Brian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Benyon, W.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Parkinson, Cecil


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Havers, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hayhoe, Barney
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Boscawen, Robert
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bowden, Andrew
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Redmond, Robert


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Holt, Miss Mary
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hornby, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Burden, F. A.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, Sir Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
James, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Simeons, Charles


Churchill, W. S.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jopling, Michael
Soref, Harold


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Spence, John


Cooper, A. E. 
Kimball, Marcus
Sproat, Iain


Cormack, Patrick
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Critchley, Julian
Kirk, Peter
Steel, David


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Crowder, F. P.




d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Lamont, Norman
Stokes, John


Dean, Paul
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Le Merchant, Spencer
Tapsell, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dykes, Hugh
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Loveridge, John
Tebbit, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, R. N.
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Emery, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Trew, Peter


Fidler, Michael
Mather, Carol
Tugendhat, Christopher


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mawby, Ray
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fleteher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walters, Dennis


Fortescue, Tim
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Warren, Kenneth


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gardner, Edward
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gibson-Watt, David
Money, Ernle
Wilkinson, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Winterton, Nicholas


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Godber, Rt. Hn J. B.
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gorst, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Younger, Hn. George


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles



Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gray, Hamish
Murton, Oscar
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Green, Alan
Neave, Airey
Mr. Kenneth Clarke

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Six o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Order [2nd May], to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That this Schedule be the fourth Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 213, Noes 196.

Division No. 252.]
AYES
[6.12 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Normanton, Tom


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Nott, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Balniel, Lord
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Osborn, John


Batsford, Brian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Parkinson, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Havers, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hayhoe, Barney
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Boscawen, Robert
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hicks, Robert
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bowden, Andrew
Hiley, Joseph
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Braine, Bernard
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Redmond, Robert


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Holt, Miss Mary
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Sharples, Sir Richard


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cary, Sir Robert
James, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby
Simeons, Charles


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sinclair, Sir George


Churchill, W. S.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Soref, Harold


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jopling, Michael
Speed, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Spence, John


Cooke, Robert
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Sproat, Iain


Cooper, A. E.
Kimball, Marcus
Stainton, Keith


Cormack, Patrick
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Costain, A. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Steel, David


Critchley, Julian
Kirk, Peter
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stokes, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lamont, Norman
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Dean, Paul
Le Marchant, Spencer
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Tebbit, Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John



Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Temple, John M.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Trew, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mather, Carol
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fidler, Michael
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mawby, Ray
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Warren, Kenneth


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fox, Marcus
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gardner, Edward
Money, Ernle
Wilkinson, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monroe, Hector
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
More, Jasper,
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Younger, Hn. George


Gorst, John
Morrison, Charles



Gower, Raymond
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Murton, Oscar
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey
 Mr. Kenneth Clarke


Green, Alan
Nicholls, Sir Harmar





NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Hamling, William
Molloy, William


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hardy, Peter
Molyneaux, James


Ashton, Joe
Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Murray, Ronald King


Baxter, William
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Horam, John
O'Malley, Brian


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Bidwell Sydney
Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Biffen, John
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Booth, Albert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Bradley, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Hugh (D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prescott, John


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rankin, John


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cohen, Stanley
Kerr, Russell
Rose, Paul B.


Concannon, J. D.
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Lamborn, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Crawshaw, Richard
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Latham, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Deakins, Eric
Lomas, Kenneth



Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stallard, A. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Edelman, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Taverne, Dick


Ellis, Tom
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


English, Michael
McMaster, Stanley
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tomney, Frank


Ewing, Harry
Maginnis, John E.
Torney, Tom


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marquand, David
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marsden, F.
Wainwright, Edwin


Foley, Maurice
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Foot, Michael
Marten, Neil
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Watkins, David


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Golding, John
Mendelson, John
Whitlock, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Milne, Edward
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moate, Roger
Mr. Ernest Armstrong

Schedule 4 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 8

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 121, in page 12, line 22, after 'films', insert:

'other than co-production films in which the United Kingdom is not a partner'.

The Temporary Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following:

Amendment No. 203 in page 12, line 34, at end insert:
'but no film which fails in any respect to comply with the Films Act 1960 shall qualify as a quota film'.

Amendment No. 124 in line 38, at end insert:
'but no such film shall be registered as a quota film if it is substantially financed by capital from a non-community country'.

Amendment No. 125 in line 38, at end insert:
'but no such film shall be regarded as a quota film if it is dubbed into English'.

Amendment No. 126 in line 38, at end insert:
'but no such film shall be regarded as a quota film unless it conforms to the requirements of the Films Acts 1960 and 1970'.

New Clause 5: Co-production films:
Co-production films shall not qualify for British quota unless one of the partners in the co-production is a United Kingdom based company and the film complies with the Films Act, 1960.

Mr. Jenkins: In an earlier debate the Lord Advocate, who was replying to it, pointed out that the Amendment then under discussion sought to protect the British film industry from the provisions of the EEC relating to the free movement of labour. He said that that was an absolutely cardinal principle of the EEC and that for that reason the Amendment could not be accepted.
These Amendments do not penetrate any such cardinal principle. Indeed, in order to table Amendments which we hoped the Government would find acceptable we have not sought to put forward proposals which would affect that cardinal principle of the free movement of labour, although may I say in passing that it is very painful to have to relinquish an attempt to protect the British film industry from the consequences of the free movement of labour, because our industry has developed on entirely different lines from the industry on the Continent.
The development of film industries throughout the world was not enormously dissimilar until the invention of the "talkie". From that point the development of the industries on the Continent and in this country moved apart, for the simple reason that we share a common language with the United States and, therefore, it became necessary for us to protect ourselves against the consequences

of being in association with the huge American industry to a much greater degree than was necessary in the countries of the Six, which were automatically protected by the fact that they did not use the same language. Although dubbing and sub-titles played a rôle, their industries were not open, as our industry was and still is, to the consequences of being affected by the very much larger industry, as it then was, across the Atlantic.
Therefore, although the consequences of the free movement of labour will be very serious for the British film industry, we are not raising that matter tonight, partially because it would probably be difficult to get an Amendment to Clause 8 in order for that purpose. Also, we are producing a series of Amendments which, although important and vital for the protection of the British industry, are not of such a character as anyone who is keen on this country going into the Common Market could say would prevent this country from entering the Market. We are seeking to make reasonable improvements to the Bill which will, we believe, give the British film industry a better chance of competing with that on the Continent and which are not objectionable in principle to the EEC or to any of the film directives which the EEC has issued.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSONin the Chair]

The Government have agreed that the object of Clause 8 is primarily to change the Films Act, 1960, so as to put films made in any Community country on the same level as films made in this country. That is a neutral statement of the object of the exercise. There are other subsidiary objects, but that is the primary object of the Clause. Therefore, in order to describe what that does, it is necessary to remind the Committee that the registration of a film as "British" gives it British quota status, and exhibitors are required to show a percentage—about 30 per cent.—of British films of the total. Inclusion in the quota of British films immeasurably improves a film's chances of being distributed. It is, therefore, an advantage for a film to be included in


the quota, and inclusion brings in its train other benefits.

Films within the quota enjoy the benefit of the Eady levy, which is a form of redistribution. Some people think of it as a subsidy, but I think of it as a redistribution of the proceeds of the box office back to the producer. Films in the quota can also benefit from assistance from the National Film Finance Corporation. These are substantial benefits which British films enjoy. Under Clause 8 Community films will acquire these benefits. That is the object of the exercise.

At first glance there would seem to be no great problem. After all, who will show foreign films on the British circuit even if the quota is open to them? That is the first obvious thought that one would have. But we have co-production agreements with other countries—France and Italy. These agreements have been ironed out with great difficulty between this country and the two other countries. Under these agreements, a film made in two languages—British and French, or as the case may be—counts for quota purposes. The British film gets the benefits of any protective legislation of the other country, and the other country's film gets the benefits of any legislation in this country.

So already the film industry has made a move in the direction of co-operative action with two of the countries of the Six—Italy and France. Two versions of the film are produced simultaneously, a British version and an Italian version or a French version. Great care has been taken in these agreements to protect the interests of producers and workers in both countries, so that the country with the lower wage rates and inferior conditions is not allowed to exploit that situation to the disadvantage of the producers and workers in the other country.

6.30 p.m.

Here is the rub. The effect of Clause 8 as at present worded is to render co-production throughout the Community possible without any of the protections which have caused such difficulty in these discussions. Here we have the British film industry exposed to competition which would be regarded, I think, as unfair competition, unless we take some action to rectify the situation. The action we propose will not be regarded by anyone as

being unreasonable. Unless we make the changes advocated in the Amendments, a film made with American capital in Italy could qualify for British quota provided it conformed with the requirements of the quota.

Therefore, we have this problem. The British film industry has benefited substantially from American capital, but the possibility of that capital continuing to come here if it can go elsewhere and find cheaper conditions of employment, and, perhaps, better weather, is one which must concern all who feel that the British film industry still has a considerable contribution to make to the cinema.

That brings me to Amendment No. 121. That simply provides that in order to qualify for Community quota in this country—we shall have to stop thinking about the British quota if the Bill becomes an Act; we shall have to start thinking about the Community quota—a Community co-production must have the United Kingdom as one of the partners. The Amendment does not attempt to alter anything else.

Such legislation is complicated, but I believe that such legislation exists in the countries of the Six already. I am merely asking the Government to do here what I believe is the case in France and Italy already.

The Amendment is simple and necessary. It cannot be rejected on its merits or on some imagined demerits. It has no demerits. It is merely a protective Amendment. It does not go to the heart of the Community or anything like that.

The previous Minister in charge of these matters, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), is on record as agreeing that unless we take some action of this sort we could completely lose control of the quota designed to protect our industry. At a gathering in the National Film Theatre on 15th December, 1971—I do not know whether this was why he was sacked—the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who was the Government's spokesman at that time, said that it would be possible, therefore, that the whole of the quota would be European films and no British films would be shown at all. That goes too far. I do not envisage that as likely, but theoretically it is possible. It is precisely to prevent that


occurring, or any possibility of that occurring to any considerable degree, that the Amendment has been moved.

Mr. Deakins: If this new quota system comes into effect, is it not a possibility that for films in the future there could be a new Gresham's law, that bad films would drive out good, and that we should have the same type of films, whether made in this country or in the Community, competing with each other in the way one can see in some television programmes—for example, competing with those of the BBC for the maximum audiences? Ts that not something to be deplored?

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is indeed one of the possibilities which we seek to guard against by this series of Amendments. Although in the future—we do not seek to argue this at this stage—we shall get a Community quota rather than a British quota, the quota will continue to be British if the Amendment is carried to the extent that any co-production films included in it will be at least part British. That is all that the Amendment seeks to achieve.
This is a simple thing, a modest proposal. If it is rejected there could be only one reason for that, and that is that debate, argument and reason are beating their heads in vain against an undemocratic decision by the Government to listen to nothing. I hope that that will not be so tonight. We have had something of that already. Amendments which have seemed to me to be reasonable in themselves have been thrown out for what appear to be inadequate reasons. I hope that the Government will show tonight that they are not in the position of refusing anything and everything that is put to them in principle in order to avoid, as has been suggested, a Report stage.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: To reinforce what my hon. Friend has said, would he accept that many of us who accept the principle of entry into the Community think that his Amendments are reasonable and that they go to the point for the film industry and not to the point of principle on entry to the Community? If the Bill is not

to be steamrollered through Parliament, we feel that the Government ought to listen to my hon. Friend's arguments.

Mr. Jenkins: I could not be more grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He and I differ strongly about the principle of entry. He knows that I am not in favour, Equally, I know that he is in favour in principle. That he should give his wholehearted support to these Amendments will be an encouragement to hon. Members on the Government benches to treat this issue on its merits and not on the basis of prepared positions.
If the Government are not prepared to make any change and are ready to sacrifice anything, even the viability of this British industry, which has a great deal of credit and has been a very good industry from our point of view, especially in its dollar earning capacity—which is not at its peak at present, although the industry has earned vast amounts of dollars in the past and may do so again—that undoubtedly would seriously damage the industry. Not to permit the opportunity of minor amendment to mitigate the damage would be an action about which the Government would be unable to hold up their heads easily. If the Government decided to do that in order to avoid further discussion and to keep the Bill unchanged, however badly it may need changing, in the cause of a blind determination to get into the Community, that would make a mockery of Parliament. I sincerely hope that the Government will not do that.
Amendment No. 203 simply seeks to ensure that no Community film gets quota status where a British film might not. It underlines the position. It merely says "Let us have a real equality here." That is all that it seeks to do. It seeks no privileges but would merely make sure that competition is fair. It places the British film on a level with—but not superior to—the Community film.
This Amendment should be entirely acceptable to the Government. It is no use saying that it is unnecessary. A possible answer from the Government would be either that the Amendment cannot be accepted because it goes to the root of the EEC principles or that the Amendment is unnecessary. But that simply will not wash, because the record shows that many holes have been driven


through legislation in the past merely because someone thought that it was unnecessary to spell it out. The Amendment spells it out, and that is necessary if the British film industry is to be protected from being undermined by Community films in an unfair fashion.
Amendment No. 124 goes a little further. It seeks to prevent an American-financed Community film from acquiring British quota status. American-financed films could be made in Italy or, perhaps, Spain. There is nothing to prevent co-productions of this kind which are made in third countries from obtaining British quota status and the benefits that that entails provided that they conform to British quota requirements. Surely a film which has no claim to be British in any other sense of the word should not acquire British quota status. The Amendment seeks to block unfair competition which would be created because of the peculiar nature of the British industry and its history, which is so different from that of the Continental industry.
Amendment No. 125 excludes from the quota any film dubbed into English. This means that to get quota status a film must be genuinely British, although it may be made abroad, or it must be a genuine foreign film with sub-titles. It cannot be a phoney. Amendment No. 126 seeks to ensure that films made in any of the ten countries of the enlarged Community which qualify under the new Community quota must in other respects conform to British film legislation. Surely this is not unreasonable. Surely it is not too much to ask.
New Clause 5 summarises what we are trying to achieve. It perhaps says the same thing as the other Amendments but in another way. If the Government agree with the principle and offer to bring forward a Clause of their own on Report I would ask my hon. Friends not to press the new Clause, the wording of which may not be technically as good as is desirable.
The group of Amendments seek to protect the British film industry and they offer the Government a choice. At one end are Amendments so mild that they might be thought to be hardly necessary. But they are very necessary. If the Government will accept any one of these Amendments—and I can see no reason

why they should not accept them all, although they might want to reword the new Clause—I would advise my hon. Friends not to press all the other Amendments to a Division.

6.45 p.m.

The Amendments have been moved on behalf of the industry as a whole, and not only on behalf of the performers, although I have a close and personal interest in the performing union.

If the Government refuse to accept the Amendments I hope that hon. Members on both sides will say that there are limits beyond which they cannot be dragooned. Even if they favour entry into the EEC as quickly as possible, I hope they will say that they do not want to be delivered bound, gagged and trussed into the Community but that they want to go in under reasonable circumstances with reasonable protection and not have to go in willy-nilly. I hope the Government will not say that the Bill as drafted is perfect in every way and that they cannot accept these most reasonable Amendments, which are supported even by people who are passionate Europeans.

This may be the last chance for hon. Members to say that there are some prices which are too high to pay and that they are not prepared to let the power and standing of the House be eroded even for a cause which is as dear to their hearts as I know entry into the EEC must be. Nothing should demand a sacrifice of that magnitude; no end can justify such a means. I put forward the Amendments in the sincere hope that the Government will say that they recognise that they constitute a reasonable and proper proposal and that they are prepared to accept them.

Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has proposed his Amendments in a clear and restrained manner, especially when we consider the strong feelings on the main issue before us. But he has proposed that they are of a very limited nature and he says that it is reasonable, therefore, for hon. Members to consider whether they might properly support them apart from the main question.
I believe the hon. Member is wrong. The very nature of the Amendments strikes perhaps not at the basis of the Bill but at the basis and feeling behind the


EEC. The Amendments propose that the film industry, apart from all other industries, should be put into a permanent position of receiving superior treatment to that afforded to the film industries in the other Community countries. It would be worth considering what that means and what the Amendments therefore seek to achieve.

The Amendments seek to cut down the basic principle of total equality of trading within the European Economic Community. The suggestion is that certain safeguards shall be provided in the British market for the British film. Is there something inherent in the nature of film-making in general and in Britain in particular which demands that it, of all industries, should be given this specific protection? I believe that there is not.
For many years we have had a form of protection for the British film industry, which has primarily been to protect it from American products. As the hon. Gentleman said, we share a common language, to some degree anyway. It has been suggested that it would be right for us to see to it that in continuing this policy the British film—manufactured in Britain with American capital, perhaps, but the British film as it would be denned today under the film quota arrangements—is protected from films manufactured in other countries of the enlarged Community. I believe that that is objectionable in principle and wholly wrong, because it is to suggest that we are so afraid that our film industry cannot stand up to reasonable and fair competition that we must provide it with a special protection.
The hon. Gentleman said that he is not afraid of fair competition but does not want unfair competition. But that is precisely what he is proposing to give the British film industry. He wants to give it an unfair position within the enlarged Community. He wants to say that a film produced in Britain shall have certain positive advantages in Britain which are not available to the other members of the EEC. But our intention and purpose in entering the EEC is to enable us to have a market with 10 nations, where there will be increasingly free trade among the partners. I am sure that those of my hon. Friends who are opposed to

our entry into the EEC on the grounds that there is not enough free trade, that it is not a big enough grouping, would not want a situation in which the British film industry alone among film industries was given that protection.

Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman suggests that there would be unfair discrimination against the Europeans in this respect if we were to protect the film industry. By the same token, why are we not including in the Bill an Amendment to, for example, the Television Acts, 1954 and 1964, which protect us against undue American influence and competition and the inflow of American products into the television industry, an analagous industry if ever there was one?

Mr. Gummer: The Bill contains all those things that must be included for our accession into the EEC. The argument is that it may well be necessary to change the laws in respect of protection of the film industry. But the hon. Member for Putney suggested that the changes we wish to make are not the right ones but that other changes should be made. I believe the changes the hon. Gentleman wishes to make are thoroughly bad in regard to both our relationship with the EEC and the film industry.

Mr. Michael Foot: When the hon. Gentleman says "must", will he define the word a little more closely? Does he means that there have been negotiations or discussions with the countries in Europe and that we have put up proposals along the lines my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) suggests, and that they have been rejected? Does he mean that we must do it legally or morally, or as a necessity for entering Europe? Does he really think that this is one of the sticking points?

Mr. Gummer: I suspect that we have discussed this with the hon. Gentleman in almost every debate we have had. The use of the word "must" is the reasonable one of saying that there is a whole series of areas where we must legislate if we are to carry out what are clearly the obligations both of the treaties we have signed and of the original treaties and the amendments to them. Clearly, we cannot have a situation in which the British reserve to themselves in their own market


30 per cent. of the films, because we are to be part of a Community in which we treat each other equally. That is what we are setting out to do. We cannot say that there is something about the film industry which is so special as to mean that we must do precisely what the hon. Gentleman is implying that we must have a special negotiation about the film industry which does not apply to the publishing industry or any other communications industry. My suggestion is, therefore, that the film industry of all industries least needs this protection.
The hon. Member for Putney said that there have been many arrangements made with other countries within the Common Market and outside to make sure that their films, in a separate production, can be accepted within our quota. I know that to be true. But let us ask ourselves why it has been done. It has been done in order to protect not the film industry but the present arrangements of the industry. The hon. Gentleman says that it is to protect the industry against lower wage rates and inferior conditions. In our previous debate he pointed out that many American spectaculars were made in this country because we made them cheaper, and it is evidently reasonable to have lower wage rates in this country to make films cheaper than the Americans. But when people start asking whether it is reasonable to have the enormous overloading of labour in the British film industry, with its increasing costs because of the restrictive practices which are paramount in the industry, the hon. Gentleman has to admit that the industry is not at its finest flowering at present. He had to use as his examples past occasions when we earned dollars in such profusion. Why should he have had to do that? It is precisely because the British film industry has priced itself out of the market. It is asking for the kind of protection which would enable it at least for some time to continue in that thoroughly unhealthy state.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps not realised exactly what he is saying. It is the case that at one time we were undercutting the American levels, so much so that the situation in Hollywood was very serious, and people used to talk about runaway production. Now the production money is finding cheaper and cheaper areas. The Ameri-

can film industry was undoubtedly done great damage in the period to which I have referred, and our own will be done great damage if we allow it to travel into other countries. The hon. Gentleman cannot be enunciating the proposition that it is wrong for any country to protect its national film industry in any way.

Mr. Gummer: I am enunciating two principles. The first is that we should not so arrange matters as to protect an industry which has increasingly priced itself out of the market by totally artificial restrictive practices. Let us take a single example. If someone wishes to make a British film on location in Spain and he needs a door which has to be painted yellow instead of blue, he has to take a British painter there and keep him there not for the time it takes him to paint the door but for the whole period for which the filming will go on. That kind of restrictive practice is surely not something we are to write into the law of the land again? We have already done it by our present system, and many of us are very unhappy about that system. We feel that it is operated by the film industry as a means of retaining restrictive practices which are quite unsuitable. The argument is that American capital can come in and be used in France to make a film which can then be sold as part of the quota in Britain. That is to cover up the fact that at present American capital can come into Britain and a film can be made here which will become part of the quota in Britain. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that for this industry alone there shall be an arrangement whereby Britain shall be treated separately from all the other countries of the EEC.

[Sir ROBKRT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

7.0 p.m.

That is a perfectly reasonable argument to advance; it can be said, but it cannot then be suggested that it does not strike at the heart of the reason for our entry into the Community. We are entering the Community because we believe that by removing the trade barriers, by ensuring that people can compete fairly and equally within the enlarged Community, we shall create wealth which we would not otherwise create. If we believe that, it is wrong to suggest that the film industry


should be specially treated without expressing that there is something innately different about the film industry from, for example, the publishing industry. It is for this reason that I suggest that the publishing industry is the exactly equal parallel. There is a scope for British co-productions in the publishing industry.

One of our problems is that many people in other countries are more efficient at producing co-productions than we are. We are not suggesting that a whole new Clause should be produced to secure that the British publishing industry shall have a special protection against the publishing industries of the rest of the Community. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt say that there was never an agreement about that for the publishing industry but that there was for the film industry and that, as there was such an agreement for the film industry, we should continue with the arrangement.

I suggest that this is not an argument which should stand up. For many of us the present situation is unsatisfactory. Many of us are asking why this protection should continue unless it can be shown to have created a virile and lively British film industry which can stand up to anything but unfair competition and needs this protection merely against unfair competition.

The hon. Gentleman, in proposing these changes, has not suggested that it is unfair competition. He has merely suggested that it is competition, and that it is competition which he would prefer not to have to face. That is a very odd argument, particularly from someone who I have heard argue before that one of the great disadvantages of the Community is that it is too small and far too limited an area. It is not an argument that will appeal to those hon. Members on this side who believe that the Common Market is to be opposed because it is too narrow a grouping.

The hon. Gentleman went on to argue that the reason for Amendment No. 121 was also to protect a dangerously placed British film industry against films coming in which would price out good films. I believe that the phrase he accepted from one of his hon. Friends was that bad films would drive out good ones. This is a hark back to the debate we had earlier on the film industry, when the hon.

Gentleman suggested that one of the troubles about having a European film industry would be that we should drop to the lowest denominator, that somehow the countries which had produced Antonioni and Fellini would drop much lower than we would. The hon. Gentleman made quotations about Engelbert Humperdinck, who, he thought, would be the staple diet of all films produced in this country by a European film industry. This is not true. Further, it is not affected by the Amendment that he suggests will affect it.

The idea that all bad films are made on the Continent and all good films are made in Britain is not only just not true, but, unfortunately, it is very nearly the reverse of the truth. Anyone who went to any of the European capitals today and looked at the British films on show would be hard put to it to argue that they—whether "Up the Chastity Belt" or "Double Deckers"—are of a higher intellectual and cultural level than the films which are produced in France and Germany.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is erecting a series of Aunt Sallys and knocking them down. He is not addressing his arguments to the Amendments. Nobody has suggested that all British films are good and all foreign films are bad. Why not treat the argument seriously? The hon. Gentleman is not dealing with a serious proposition. He is talking wind. Why not talk about the Amendments?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman, if he feels that the arguments he put forward are such that they cannot be treated seriously, is of course right. The fact is that hon. Gentlemen will have heard him say that one of the reasons for Amendment No. 121 was that it would stop bad films from driving out good films. I am trying to answer that statement. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it was such a silly argument that it is not worth answering, I will move from that and go on to his argument on the other Amendments.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that it is important to ensure that no film which fails in any respect to comply with the Films Act, 1960, shall qualify as a quota film. The hon. Gentleman suggested that this may be said to be


unnecessary and, therefore, we on this side should accept the Amendment because it would at least underline the situation—in other words, that it would be unfair to say that the Amendment is unnecessary and he wants to ensure that no foreign film will have an advantage over a British one.
The only reason for this Amendment being tabled is the spirit of the other Amendments which the hon. Gentleman has tabled. Without those other Amendments, everybody accepts as reasonable that within the EEC all films produced within the Community shall be treated equally. Everybody realises that that is the basis of our entry into the Community; that is why we are doing it.
Immediately that the hon. Gentleman proposes that there should, by tariff restrictions, be a special position for British films, people start asking whether there should not be an arrangement to ensure that some films be treated more equally than others. The hon. Gentleman must accept that his Amendment is unnecessary. It is an odd argument that an Amendment which is unnecessary should be allowed to go through on the basis that, because it is unnecessary, it should be added to the Bill.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: I have already given way. I want to get on to the further points.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent what I said.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must accept that if we were to proceed on the basis he has advocated we should have added a very large number of unnecessary Clauses to the Bill just to ensure that everybody realised that this or that industry was covered or was not covered by something by which it clearly is or is not covered.
It would be wrong to accept the Amendment, partially because it is unnecessary and partially because it pronounces within itself a truism which the hon. Gentleman should have accepted from the beginning; namely, that either we join the Community upon the basis that we treat all its members equally or we do not joint the Community. If we do not want to join the Community,

that is perfectly reasonable and it can be argued through.
It must not be suggested that a derogation from that basic principle is of no import, that it does not matter that it is being done only to ensure that everybody is clear what it is all about, that it is being done for this industry only because there is a specific case for it.
I turn lastly to the proposal that there should be some restriction on capital financing from a non-Community country. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that within the Community there shall be two classes of film—that a film made in Britain financed by an American company could go into the quota, but a film made in France financed by an American company would be excluded from the quota.
That stark statement makes it clear why the Amendments are not acceptable, because there it is being said that, instead of joining the Community which is to have free trade, we are to join the Community which will have some free trade except for the film industry, which will have a different arrangement.
If the hon. Gentleman had suggested, as I believe he hinted the last time we discussed the matter, that the various authorities in the European film industry were getting together to see whether there was not a better way jointly to protect the European film industry from unfair competition from outside, I would have been with him all the way along the line. Indeed, perhaps the remarks of those in opposition to him might be reported in his Equity newspaper, as well as his own remarks this time if we were able to agree on something. But that is not what he is suggesting. He has not suggested that that is what we should do.
The reason why the hon. Gentleman has not suggested that, the reason for these Amendments, the reason why the hon. Gentleman has not suggested that that is the Community's answer, which I myself would hope the Minister in reply would support, is simply that he does not actually want to join the Common Market at all. It is all very well for him to say, as he has said, that his is an entirely neutral position, although he agrees that he is opposed to our entering the Common Market. But many of the troubles in the British film industry at


the moment have been created by those who have been using this issue, as others have used Commonwealth sugar, and others have used other issues, in order to be, so to say, more Catholic than the Pope. Commonwealth islands can agree that the arrangements for sugar are O K, but the British Labour Party has to go one better and say they are not good enough; New Zealanders can say that the arrangements for New Zealand are O K, but the British Labour Party must go one better and say they are not.
The British film industry widely disputes the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman. There are many people in the British film industry, including many senior directors, who want to see a British film industry which can stand on its own feet and compete and not be run out of the market by the kind of arrangement which the hon. Gentleman would perpetuate to eternity. There are many people in the British film industry who believe that our entry into the Community would give our industry enormous chances to show our films throughout the Community.
These Amendments, if we were to pass them, would mean, even if they were compatible with our obligations were we to enter the Community, that the French, German, Italian, and Benelux film industries would be able to demand a similar situation. What would that mean? It would mean that our great advantage in being able to export, very often unchanged, English films in English, and show them much more widely on the Continent than, for instance, German films can be shown in this country—the great advantages which would eventually accrue to our industry within the Community—would be quickly undermined.
It is for that reason that I believe it was wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest in his first words that these Amendments are really very limited in their nature, that they do not strike at the heart of the issue. They do strike at the heart of the issue, not only of the issue of the Common Market but of the free trade issue. Those hon. Members who believe in free trade cannot support these Amendments because they are in restraint of trade, and they are meant to be in restraint of trade; and they are meant

to be in restraint of trade without any argument to say that the British film industry is not so well run, not so efficiently organised, that it is reasonable, rational and acceptable to protect it. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman at no point was able to adduce an argument against the widely held view—as I know it to be from my own experience in producing films—and very true statement about the British film industry that if only it would put its own house in order it would be able to win new markets throughout the world. But it is afraid to do so, and because it is afraid to do so it demands of the House a protection which the House refuses to extend to any other industry.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I rise to oppose the Amendments because I do not think they are in the true interest of competition. The first time I came across the quota on films was in my first job when one of my tasks was to add up the footage and make sure that enough British films were displayed. Then I learned that there was some evil legislation created in this Chamber which stopped me from seeing the films I most enjoyed, while a lot of rubbish came from British studios at that time. There has been quite a change since then.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) tried to conceal his anti-Common Market views, but what he said was pure protectionism, and all these Amendments are, I believe, wrecking. That kind of protectionism marks the hon. Member as being a Little Englander rather than a mini-British Lion.
Quite frankly, I am surprised that we have to have this Clause about the film industry. The figures for the last year for which I have them show that the value of film exhibition—I am not talking about the production side—was £59 million in this country. That £59 million is about half the size of the cat and dog food trade, and the cat and dog food trade has never been subsidised. The whole effect of this Clause 8 is so minor that I cannot see why the hon. Member wants to propose any Amendment to it. Well, I can see why he wants to: he wants to wreck the Bill, or he wants to lose a couple of weeks in August.

7.15 p.m.

I have read through the EEC directives on the film industry quota. There is none of these directives coming out of Brussels with which I cannot agree. They are purely to create competition, and fair competition within the European context. Their rules will help to make a better European film industry.

We cannot discuss this matter without looking at the effect of television on the film trade. It is intriguing to me that I should find myself speaking on this matter tonight because last Saturday night another cinema in my constituency closed, and next Saturday the last cinema in my constituency closes. I have now a constituency without a cinema. That cannot be too unusual. It is a sign of the times. This second wave of television experience, with the effect of colour television, which is now going into more and more people's homes, will have effects on the film industry and the film market. The exhibition of films must be shrinking all the time.

I have checked on the television figures in Europe. The latest figures show that France has nearly 11 million television sets; Germany nearly 18 million; Luxembourg 62,000; Belgium nearly 3 million; Italy nearly 10 million; the Netherlands 3 million; and we here now have about 17million—61 million television sets in the whole of the Community plus ourselves. This must have some effect on the Community's attitude and our attitude towards the film industry in this country.

Surely the future of the film industry is not so much in exhibiting films in conventional cinemas as in producing—and "production" is the operative word here—films and getting them on to TV cassettes and even cable television. At some day in the near future the Common Market will obviously legislate for what happens about cable television and cassette TV, as America is doing right now. There will have to be feed-back from houses as well as feed-in. I can see the day when the British film industry will be part of the European film industry, and production will go up, and the production will all be put on the cassette, and I believe that there will be a central library within each nation, and that viewers will not go out to the cinema

but will be able to dial their programmes. This is in the future. Presumably we shall be involved after 1st January in the setting up of the kind of legislation which will make sure that the creative people are able to get their payment from the people viewing their products.

I believe that the rules in the Common Market are for free competition, and I am convinced that this means great creativity. The creative people should not hide themselves behind a network of restrictive practices. That is totally at variance with their being the kind of people I believe they should be. I am quite sure that talent is prepared to move throughout the whole of Europe. Indeed, it is easier to move throughout Europe. When I think about the matter that way, and remember how easy it is to move around Europe today, I am convinced that the film industry will look forward to moving around Europe and sending its products around Europe.

In my view, Amendment No. 121 is a wrecking Amendment, and it is in direct contravention of the EEC directives. Amendment No. 126 is also a wrecking Amendment which will nullify the eligibility of Community films to be counted towards the United Kingdom quota. Each one of the Amendments is designed to give a specific form of protection to the United Kingdom industry which the rest of Europe will not enjoy. The Amendments are absolutely at variance with the whole ethic of going into Europe and I cannot possibly support them. I support the Government on the Clause.

Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to make only a brief contribution to reply to one or two remarks made by the hon. Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) and Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), and to give the reasons why we on this side of the Committee support the Amendments, especially in view of the attitude expressed by the hon. Gentlemen, which shows a misunderstanding of the view we seek to present.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough when he says that it is odd that there should be a Clause of this monumental size dealing with the film industry in a Bill of this character. Of course the


Bill is extremely lopsided. It is extraordinary that the Clause dealing with the film industry should be four times longer than the essential Clause dealing with most of the other industries in the land. It is a sign that the Government decided to deal with the film industry in a different way from the way in which they dealt with many other industries which have been protected.
I intervene to ask for an explanation of the negotiations with European countries on these matters. There have been no reports to the House of Commons about such negotiations, although I presume that a Clause of this character would have been introduced only after such discussions. I should like to know exactly what was the nature of those discussions and whether, before the Government negotiated with the European countries concerned, they asked for the views of certain sections of the British film industry. For example, did they ask for the views of the unions?
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West poured scorn on what might be regarded as restrictive practices that might operate in part of the industry. We all know that in the film industry, in the newspaper industry, with which I have been associated, and even in the publishing industry, with which he is associated, one can always pick out examples of restrictive practices and make them sound comic. But if one looks at the origin of many of the restrictive practices in the film industry and other industries one finds the reason why they have arisen and why it is foolish to deride practices which have grown up for reputable reasons.
Scorn has been poured on the quota system, although hon. Gentlemen have praised continental films. I agree that some of the finest films that have ever been produced have come from Italy, Germany and France—and we are eager to see them. But practically all those films have been created in industries which are protected by quota systems.
The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough spoke derisively of any quota system in the film industry and mentioned other creative industries which do not need protection. We should all like a system in which such protections and shields were not necessary, but it so happens that all the European film indus-

tries that have prospered have had to be protected by a quota system at one time or another. All the industries to which tributes have been paid have prospered because at a certain period in their lives they have had the advantage either of quota systems or of Eady type subsidies.
It is fantasy for hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest that what has made film industries prosper throughout the world is the pure milk of the gospel of free trade. It is not so. So powerful was the American film industry and so powerful was American finance that the British film industry, along with other continental film industries, had to seek a means of ensuring that they were not drowned altogether by it. That is perfectly reputable and reasonable.
The film union, the ACTT, has always campaigned for a quota to withstand the overpowering force of American competition. The ACTT had many other items in its creed which have never been carried out by Governments of either complexion. Indeed, if they had been, the industry would have been better still. The film industries of Europe had the benefit of similar systems and it is therefore no use talking of free trade as the method by which all these matters should be settled.
In all the debates, whether on sugar, food or other matters, we on this side of the Committee have proved ourselves to be much better free traders than have hon. Gentlemen opposite. But, as in all other matters, we are not dogmatic free traders; we are discriminating free traders, and that has always been our policy. We are not indiscriminate protectionists like the members of the Liberal Party, who are in favour of taxing everything, starting with food. We are discriminating protectionists, discriminating free traders. We are in favour of free trade wherever it can be secured. We want free trade to spread much wider than the narrow limits of Europe. We object to the proposals for establishing new barriers in Europe, particularly when applied to essential commodities such as food.
Because the Government have selected the film industry for a special Clause of monumental, mammoth size in this miniscule Bill, they have directed special attention to it and have said that special


arrangements must be made for it. All right, but we say that if we are to make special arrangements let us take into account what has happened in our industry and in the continental industries over the years and see whether the arrangements are being properly applied.
The Amendments do not strike at the heart of the EEC, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West suggested, in one of his more euphoric passages. They do nothing of the sort, and he knows perfectly well that they are not striking at the heart of anything. These are minor Amendments on minor aspects of the Bill. If the Amendments were accepted Europe would not be shaken. The Brussels Commission would not summon the negotiators to explain themselves. The Amendments would not produce a ripple on the surface, and nothing in Europe would be altered. They do not alter the main purpose of the Clause but merely make minor modifications in the way in which special provision is to be made for the film industry.
The Amendments have the support of the people who work in the industry, people who have had experience in the industry and people who know what it has meant when the film industry has been left to the mercies of free trade and nothing else. Those hon. Members who remember some of the debates concerning the film industry going back over the years, will remember the arguments which we have had as to why it was necessary for some special provisions to be made in the form not only of quotas but of National Film Finance Corporation money or Eady balances. It was the Labour Government after 1945 who laid down some provisions which prevented the British film industry from being destroyed. In the same way we do not want to rush into measures now which we believe could be injurious to the industry. To secure that we have proposed this modest Amendment.

[Mr. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

7.30 p.m.

I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will give us a full account of the negotiations which took place, the representations which the Government made to their partners in Europe, and whether the negotiations followed dis-

cussions with the industry here and particularly with the people who work in the industry, the unions. After we have been given an account of those proceedings, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us what he thinks of these minor Amendments and why he thinks—if he does so think—that they should not be incorporated in the Bill. I hope that in any case we shall not have to have an extensive debate on the fundamentals of the European Economic Community, which is plainly a principle which does not enter into this debate.

Mr. Robert Cooke: In following the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) I shall not attempt to answer the questions which he has addressed to the Government. I have no doubt that they will treat them with whatever seriousness they deserve. I do not propose to tangle with the hon. Gentleman on any political matters, except to say that he is always most persuasive in Committee. One always feels one is only being asked to do something small and reasonable when the hon. Member is addressing the House in his more reasonable frame of mind, which is most of the time except when he gets excited. But all the minor things which the hon. Gentleman is asking the Committee to do would add up to a lot when put together. We must be wary in falling for what he has suggested. That is all I wish to say about the hon. Gentleman. If he has more urgent matters to attend to elsewhere, he need not stay and listen to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) as usual reduced everything to its lowest terms. I have seldom heard my hon. Friend make a speech on any subject in which I am interested when the dog food, cat food or something else which he has on sale in his excellent supermarket does not somehow get worked in. My hon. Friend is an example of somebody who can move with the times, who is eminently flexible in his approach.
My hon. Friend began by saying that television had had a big influence on the film industry. How right he was. Television is a new art form which is changing all the time. He is quite right about the partnership which should exist, and can become more close, between television and the film industry. It is true


that certain types of film have not been very satisfactory when shown on the sort of television screens which we have had up to now. However, with the more universal enjoyment of colour, and means of projection far different from when television first came on the scene, such films can be enjoyed in the home not only through transmission but by cassette and cable, as my hon. Friend rightly said.
The cinema could survive if it were prepared, as some cinemas have been, to move with the times. The public house was thought to be a dying institution until the brewers woke up and improved facilities so that the public house became a place where the family could enjoy themselves. Cinemas could do a certain amount in that direction. I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not become involved in the organisation of the two cinemas in Brighouse and Spenborough. If he had been so involved, with all his methods they would still be open.

Mr. Proudfoot: The railway line went.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Cooke My hon. Friend would no doubt have kept the railway line open as well, but he cannot do everything. He used to represent Cleveland, and I hope that Cleveland is getting on all right without him.

The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) gave us a great history of the film industry. He explained that because of American competition in the same language as ours—some might argue with that, but at any rate a reasonably intelligible language claiming to be the same—protectionism was introduced, with which we are now attempting to deal in the Clause, and which he wants further to bolster by the Amendments.

I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) made the point about the costs of making films here and why that has resulted in people trying to make films elsewhere. Although based in this country, people try to cut their costs by going elsewhere. I do not know whether one has to take a painter to Spain to paint a door and keep him there all the time, but if my hon. Friend says so it must be so. It is a matter about which one could easily quarrel, but it is typical of the principle which pervades the film industry and television. Nobody could deny

that there are a great many surplus people who have to be employed for one reason or another. One could say that that is a justifiable attitude if it will mean the stable and continued employment of people whose jobs are threatened. However, it has had the opposite effect, and they have priced themselves out of the market.

The point of Clause 8 is to place the Community on equal terms with us. I do not quarrel with that at all. What safeguards are removed by Clause 8? We have had a lot of talk about British films made here with American capital and British films made in Italy with British capital, and so on. One surely cannot quarrel with the situation where the film industry is doing its best to cross frontiers. Going into Europe to participate on equal terms must surely be a good thing. I favour anything that is in Clause 8 that that will make it easier for a sharing of resources and a pooling of ideas.

The hon. Member for Putney in his Amendments is just a deal too timid. What have we to fear from the competition of films made in Europe? If British films are bad and foreign films are better, then British films had better pull their socks up, try to meet the competition and beat it. It is no use thinking that one can bolster up by protectionism an industry that cannot make its way in the world.

The hon. Member talked about protection against unfair competition. One can protect industry—I am not talking about the film industry—against the dumping of cheap goods or goods purchased below the cost of their production because they are surplus, which occurs with commodities like cheap textiles or surplus food products of one kind or another; but it is hardly true to place the film industry and films in the same category. Films are works of art. When people go to the cinema they do not go just for the sake of seeing any film. That might have been the position years ago when the film industry flourished and television had not made its mark. In those days people made a Saturday evening trip to the cinema or, if it was full, they would go on a Friday, regardless of what the film was. That age has passed away. People now go to see the film of their choice. A little more Continental influence in our cinema would


be like a fresh breeze; art would be crossing frontiers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West made the point—I also had it in mind before he spoke—that we have no frontiers regarding books, painting and music. One might reflect what would be the position of Mr. Handel, a German who came to this country and is now regarded as our greatest composer, if the hon. Member for Putney had been on the scene with some of his restrictive legislation before that gentleman came to our shores.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Rubbish!

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish". I am delighted to think that he knows how he would have acted back in the eighteenth century.
Surely the best protection for the film industry—I speak of the European film industry—is that it should have the widest possible audience. The EEC has its market, if one can use such a crude term for an art form—a very costly art form as far as production goes. Obviously, if the money does not come into the box office the films do not pay and no more can be made. But if we have a firm European market, who knows, we may be able to go further. We may also see more European films gaining a place in the American market. Why look only across the Atlantic? Why not to Asia and beyond?
The Japanese are in London this week mopping up some of the best pieces at some of the great auction sales that are taking place. They have suddenly become most interested in our art of all kinds. With a firm European market, no doubt we can spread ourselves all over the world.
I believe that our film industry could eventually die in isolation if those like the hon. Member for Putney had their way, but that it can flourish in a healthy partnership in Europe. We owe a great artistic debt to many of our European friends. The way that our European neighbours have left their mark upon our life is here for all to see every day. Why not, for a change, try to repay this debt? Let us use some of our influence in Europe. We can do that all the better if we leave Clause 8 alone by setting aside the restrictive Amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Putney.

Mr. Richard Body: When my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) looks hard at me and says no free trader can support the Amendment, I must be chary as to which Lobby I go into tonight. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary could help to guide my steps by answering a few questions.
First, will my hon. Friend tell me something about the Eady Levy and its future? As I understand Regulation 1612 of 1968, that levy will become illegal. If so, may I ask whether my hon. Friend has received any representations from the British film industry about it? What effect will it have on the British film industry? Can any levy or subsidy take its place if we enter the Community?
Next, I should like to ask about the definitions which are to be used if the Bill remains unamended. Going through some of the directives and digesting them as best I can, which is not very well, the definitions seem linguistic rather than national. If so, what is to happen about the American film in our market? Will my hon. Friend answer that very important question, because it would certainly influence me as to which Lobby I go into?

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): The debate has given us another opportunity to discuss the film industry. I will deal with the points which have been raised in the debate and then spend a little time dealing individually with the specific Amendments, as did the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). We had a detailed debate on some of these Amendments, which has not always been possible, in some of our discussions on earlier Amendments.
I welcome the desire of the hon. Member for Putney—it is also a desire of the Government—to see a strong film industry in this country. Certain of the statements made by the hon. Gentleman could be taken to imply that the Government were not interested in this matter. It is therefore important to make it clear that that is far from the truth. We wish to see a strong, progressive and, indeed, high quality film industry able to stand, for preference, on its own feet.

7.45 p.m.

The Government's desire to achieve this, by giving aid to the film industry, ought not to be challenged. Advances of £7½ million within a total of £11 million authorised by the films legislation have so far been made to the National Film Finance Corporation. On 8th May—Hansard, c. 253—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State announced the advance of another £1 million, bringing the figure up to £2½ million out of the further £5 million which was allowed under that legislation. That is £2½ million out of £5 million which is available up to 1980. On pure assistance grounds, nobody could suggest that the Government were not doing what is necessary—indeed, some of my hon. Friends might think the Government were doing too much with public funds—to assist the film industry.

We ought to differentiate between the two terms, the "British film" and the "British quota film". This is important because a British film is not necessarily a British quota film and does not always qualify for benefit from what is now known as the Eady Levy.

I should like to answer quickly and directly the two questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). The Eady Levy will not be illegal. It will continue in its present form, being affected only by the two points dealt with in the Clause.

My hon. Friend asked about the position of the American film. The relevant definitions will be: the British film, the British quota film, the Community film and the foreign film. The American film will, as now, be in the foreign film category. I understand the problems in the interpretation of some of the directives. Therefore, I thought it might help to spell out these definitions for my hon. Friend in response to his two direct questions. I hope that that might help to guide his feet in the right direction.

Mr. Body: What happens if the American film is made in Italy?

Mr. Emery: I will come to that later. It is part of another question.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one point about the

Eady Levy? Will he tell us—because there is genuine doubt about it, certainly in my mind—whether a co-production film of the type described by his hon. Friend would qualify for the Eady Levy if the other conditions were satisfied? Could a film which is not essentially British in that sense expect to qualify quota-wise for Eady Levy participation?

Mr. Emery: I shall be coming to that matter, which is slightly more involved.
I was seeking to differentiate between the British film and the British quota film. The British film touches a number of areas. It includes films made by the British Government and by various Government Departments which involve a high degree of presentation of newsreel or old films, and others. It also relates to the reprocessing and presentation of films—for example, the presentation of films like "Gone with the Wind" for the seventh time or any other film which is re-presented after the five-year period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) asked about special protection for the film industry and mentioned the problem of free competition. I fully understand the situation and it is an argument which it is right and proper should be raised on this Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) was again seeking to make absolutely certain that there was as little protectionism as possible in all aspects of trade. His simile involving cat food, although perhaps not having much appeal for the film industry, will be remembered by many hon. Members who heard it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) was concerned about ensuring a proper sharing of resources and pooling of artistic ideas. Personally, I would wish to do everything I could to encourage anything which will help to align us artistically with the great heritage of European culture. Obviously there is a need to encourage any activity which will help to continue that cultural heritage.
I turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). He asked about the various negotiations on these provisions. The Community's film legislation was discussed with an EEC Committee during the


negotiations and the changes made in Clause 8 are the only changes thought to be necessary arising out of our discussions with the EEC.
The hon. Gentleman then asked what consultations had taken place on trading matters. I can tell him that in the negotiations the Department of Trade and Industry gave the fullest explanation of the effect of the Community rules on the industry. When I speak of "the industry" I refer to producers, renters, exhibitors and the Federation of Film Unions. I am referring to the industry right across the board rather than to specific individuals. I am glad to say that the industry has not made any representations for the terms of directives to be changed. This is a matter which should be noted when considering these Amendments.
Amendment No. 121 seeks to prevent a film made under a co-production agreement between a member State country and another country registered as a Community film being counted towards the quota. There are some instances where arrangements are necessary to meet the directives and these have been accepted by the industry. There are others which we feel will be beneficial to the industry. I think that it will be found that what the Amendment seeks to achieve will prove to be unnecessary.
The Clause, as drafted, provides for Community films—that is to say films taking the nationality of a member State, which by definition include films which are either co-productions or joint productions—to be registered in this country as Community films; those will count towards the quota of our films. This will apply to our cinemas in this country, with minor exceptions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said at the end of last year that it would be possible for the entire British quota to be filled by Community films. I would point out that conversely the entire French or Italian quota could be filled by British films. The interesting point to be remembered is that in most cinemas the projection of British films exceeds the quota—it is about 12 to 15 per cent. greater than the quota. However, the power to alter the level of quota still remains in our hands. If it were seen that the quota

was being swelled by too many other films, the quota level could be raised. This will not be affected by any of the legislation here or by the directives.
The object of imposing obligations on cinemas is to encourage the production of films in the home country by ensuring that such films have at least a percentage of the total showing time. After our entry into the EEC, any national film of any member State would be accepted towards these quotas.
There is no ground for any suggestion that this is a back-door method by which United States-financed films made in English in some other European country will be counted as part of the quota films made here. The original version of such films must be recorded in the language, or in one of the languages, of the member State concerned. It would be possible to make a second or subsequent version in English. We must bear in mind that film producers in Europe have long welcomed United States investment in European film production. For reasons connected with our joining the EEC, United States investment has been much reduced, but there is likely to be much more investment coming into this country, with a cross-fertilisation of ideas between Great Britain and Europe.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert: The hon. Gentleman has referred to "a Community language". Does he include in "a Community language" Welsh or. indeed, Gaelic? This is a very important point for Wales.

Mr. Emery: I will be frank with the hon. Gentleman. He has bowled me a fast ball. I will have an answer for him before I sit down. I can do no more now than admit that I do not know the answer.

Mr. Shore: While reinforcements are rushed across to the hon. Gentleman, may I make sure that I have understood the point? Let us take, for example, an American or an Italian production, or an American-Italian joint production, using the English language, with the film being made in Italy. Would it count as part of the British quota, now to be the Community quota? Would it be counted, as it were, within whatever is the quota?

Mr. Emery: That is so, as long as it met the other quota requirements—such as a 75 to 80 per cent. British worker participation. If it met these requirements, it could obtain the levy, though there would have to be, of course, studio work in the United Kingdom. For the levy, there is a studio requirement. This is the aspect of the levy which is of most importance to the industry as a whole.
I can now answer the question put by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert). I am sorry to tell him that Welsh is not a Community language as such and that therefore Welsh, and, I suppose Gaelic, if it were termed as Scottish, would be dealt with under the quota arrangements as being within the British quota, as it is at the moment. The new arrangements bring no quota alterations in that respect. I hope that it is some assurance to the hon. Gentleman that there is neither benefit nor loss to the Welsh.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgraceful situation that the oldest living language in these islands, and a language which is spoken by upwards of 600,000 people in the United Kingdom, is nevertheless regarded as a foreign langauge? Will he and his colleagues undertake to look very carefully at this matter so that the Welsh langauge in this and in other matters shall not suffer the stigma of being a foreign language for Community purposes?

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. It is a nice point to make, but he knows that he has got it wrong. He cannot speak Welsh as such in this Chamber.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can he not? Just try him.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The hon. Gentleman cannot, but I can.

Mr. Emery: The film must be in the language or one of the languages of the country of origin. There is no doubt that the answer in the case of Welsh is "No", because Welsh is not a Community language. But it comes within the quota; the position remains as it is. There is no alteration. There is no serious problem as far as the position of the Welsh language is concerned.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Gentleman says that unfortunately Welsh is not a Community language. Is it the Government's view that it should be?

Mr. Emery: That is a very nice point. The position of the Welsh language is much the same in the Community as it is in this country at the moment. I do not think there needs to be any further debate on that point.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the amount of money spent on film production in Wales at the moment is extremely small and that it would be very unlikely that its accession as a Community language would increase very much the number of people wishing to watch a film in Welsh?

Mr. Emery: I could not without notice give the amount of money that is being spent on Welsh film-making, but I should think that my hon. Friend is somewhat near the truth. But I do not think that this discussion helps us with the Amendments.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: rose—

Mr. Emery: This is making fun.

Mr. Morgan: No, indeed. The hon. Gentleman told the Committee that the position of the Welsh language within the Community will be exactly the same as the position of the Welsh language in British law.

Mr. Emery: That is not what I said

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in British law the Welsh language has a special position under the Welsh Language Act, 1967. Is he saying that a corresponding provision will be written into the provisions of the EEC?

Mr. Emery: I am not saying what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to put into my mouth. What I said is that the position of the Welsh language under the Community quotas will be exactly the same as it is now. I do not intend to get drawn any further into this matter because it does not concern the Amendments, and I am certain that I am already out of order—and I do not like to be out of order.
I was asked specifically about a co-production, made in Italy with American capital. I was asked whether this could come into Britain and obtain the levy. I hope that I have made it clear that the levy could be obtained only as long as the film met the other requirements which are quite definite and which exist at the moment. The only requirements we are getting rid of are those which deal specifically with British-based companies, the control and management of which are in the United Kingdom.
It will be seen, therefore, that the Amendments would bring no benefit to the film industry. Indeed, when consulted, the industry did not make any presentation in favour of them. I hope that with the assurances which I have given, the Committee will agree that it is not necessary to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: It is necessary to detain the Committee a little longer because the Under-Secretary of State has questioned some of the points I made earlier. It is true that the organisation and financing of the British film industry is repulsively complicated—so much so that I must congratulate the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) on his valiant attempt to see how some of the Community legislation applies to our industry. I sympathise with him when he says that he found it complicated. It is indeed a very difficult industry. If I may say so without sounding patronising, the Under-Secretary of State seems to me to have grasped the essentials better than anyone else among hon. Members opposite, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) posed at one stage as a representative of the industry and at another stage as an attacker. He seemed to convey no fears about the Community arrangements. He pretended that the British film industry is in a very bad way. On the contrary, that is not so. Certainly it has passed its peak, as all film industries have passed their peak with the arrival of television. But ours is doing pretty well. It is extraordinary that our industry, with the arrival of television and the decline in the number of cinema showings in our country, is hold-

ing its own. How is it doing so? It is doing so by exporting. It is not an industry to be wiped off.
These Amendments have been sent to the Film Production Association, which was asked whether it thought them unnecessary. We have had no reply from the association. But the unions are in favour of the Amendments, which would not go to the heart of the EEC. There is a misunderstanding in the debate among hon. Members opposite, although I do not think it is shared by the Undersecretary of State. They seem to imagine that the quota destroys nationality. It does no such thing. All the Community countries have quotas and they also have nationality protections. All we are seeking to do with these Amendments is to make sure that the Government do not sell Britain short. We are trying to prevent the Government from placing us in a worse position than any of the Community countries.

Mr. Emery: Mr. Emery indicated dissent.

Mr. Jenkins: I can produce to the hon. Gentleman a Board of Trade document on the matter. For example, it shows that, in Germany, in order to acquire German nationality a film must be produced by a resident of Germany; it must be shot in German studios; or, if location shooting is necessary in another country, there must be a maximum of 30 per cent. studio shooting in Germany. It must be produced in the original version in the German language, it must be scripted, adapted and re-dialogued by Germans, directed by Germans and must employ people as principal actors, executive producers, cameramen, sound engineers, editor, director, wardrobe master all of whom must be German. The protections for the industry are there. We are trying to prevent the Government from selling our industry short. It is ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to pretend that what we are doing is trying to avoid reasonable competition.
The French film industry is more severe in some respects. In Italy there are heavy subsidies by the State to an extent unknown in this country. The Government are trying to take us into Europe with our hands tied behind our back, and that is totally unnecessary. What are


they about? We propose one thing, that co-production films made between two or more States excluding the United Kingdom shall be excluded from Community status. That is the very minimum which could be proposed, and if the Government do not accept this we know that they are not acting from reason but merely acting in this way because they want to get the Bill through and do not want a Report stage.

In those circumstances I hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, particularly that arch-apostle of competition, the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Produfoot), will come into our Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 187.

Division No. 253.]
AYES
[8.12 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield
Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moate, Roger


Armstrong, Ernest
Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William


Ashton, Joe
Heffer, Eric S.
Molyneaux, James


Atkinson, Norman
Hooson, Emlyn
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Baxter, William
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Ronald King


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Hutchison, Michael Clark
O'Malley, Brian


Biffen, John
Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Body, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Booth, Albert
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurie


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
John, Brynmor
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Prescott, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Carter, Ray (Birming'm, Northfield)
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kilfedder, James
Rankin, John


Cohen, Stanley
Kinnock, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Concannon, J. D.
Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Lamborn, Harry
Rose, Paul B.


Crawshaw, Richard
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davidson, Arthur
Latham, Arthur
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sandelson, Neville


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Deakins, Eric
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sillars, James


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lomas, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Edelman, Maurice
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ellis, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Taverne, Dick


English, Michael
Mackie, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Ewing, Henry
McMaster, Stanley
Torney, Tom


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fell, Anthony
Maginnis, John E.
Urwin, T. W.


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin


Foley, Maurice
Marquand, David
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Foot, Michael
Marsden, F.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Freeson, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Whitlock, William


Gilbert, Dr. John
Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Woof, Robert


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mendelson, John



Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Hamling, William
Milne, Edward





NOES


Adley, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Nott, John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gummer, Selwyn
Onslow, Cranley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Parkinson, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Havers, Michael
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Blaker, Peter
Hicks, Robert
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Boscawen, Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bowden, Andrew
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk,S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bryan, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary
Redmond, Robert


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hornby, Richard
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Campbell, Rt. Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, John
Rost, Peter


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, Richard


Churchill, W. S.
James, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Jessel, Toby
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Simeons, Charles


Cooper, A. E.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
Jopling, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Soref, Harold


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Speed, Keith


Critchley, Julian
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Spence, John


Crouch, David
Kinsey, J. R.
Sproat, Iain


Crowder, F. P.
Kirk, Peter
Stainton, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj-Gen.James
Kitson, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Steel, David


Drayson, G. B.
Lamont, Norman
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Dykes, Hugh
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stokes, John


Eden, Sir John
Le Merchant, Spencer
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Tapsell, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, R. N.
Tebbit, Norman


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Fidler, Michael
MeCrindle, R. A.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mather, Carol
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Gardner, Edward
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gibson-Watt, David
Money, Ernle
Warren, Kenneth


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Weatherill, Bernard


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Monro, Hector
Wilkinson, John


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Montgomery, Fergus
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gorst, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Murton, Oscar
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey



Green, Alan
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grieve, Percy
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Paul Hawkins


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 123, in page 12, line 24, after 'films' insert
'and distinct from British films'.
I understand, Mr. Brewis, that we are also to discuss Amendment No. 122, in line 24, after 'as', insert 'special'.
I was very disappointed that the Committee did not carry the Amendment on which we have just divided, which was

supported on this side of the committee and on the benches opposite. Therefore, I turn rather sadly to the second group of Amendments, which does not do even the minimum which should be done but attempts to do something which i hope will commend itself to the Government.
These Amendments propose a special community quota to run alongside the existing British quota. As the Minister pointed out in reply to the debate on the
last Amendment, the quota can be enlarged; it is not a set figure. There has been no attempt in the Community to harmonise quotas, but I would not put it past the Six to endeavour in due course to create harmonisation of quotas. At the moment each country is free to fix its own quota level. The Amendment accepts the Community quota without protection. We threw away just now the opportunity to create protection for our industry. For reasons which have precious little to do with the merits of the argument the Committee has willed that it will not give this country's industry the protection which the industries in the Six already enjoy. Very well, let us have the Community quota without any protection; but let us also have the existing British quota. That is what we propose in the Amendment. We have just failed to protect the Community quota from exploitation; we now seek to concede the Community quota exactly as the Government want it under Clause 8.
The Clause is not of our devising. It is the Government's idea of what it is necessary to do. We believe that the Government have gone far beyond what it is necessary to do. We are seeking not to modify the existing situation but to prevent the Government from selling us out. The change which we propose will not succeed in preventing that, but it will create either two quotas or two sections of a single quota.
The situation of the film industry in this country is unique. There is no country in the Six in which the American film enjoys the majority position which it has here. American films have always occupied about 60 per cent. of the cinema screen time in this country. We have geared our industry to the occupation of between 30 and 40 per cent. of screen time here. Fortunately, the Government of the day got in earlier with regard to television. We occupy about 85 per cent. of our own television screen time.
It is to the credit of our film industry—and it should not be knocked as heavily as it is—that, on a minority base, it was at one time the largest film production industry in the world. It is still a formidable and considerable film production industry. It exports to the great advantage of our balance of payments.

It exports an ever-increasing proportion of the whole, because we exist internally on a slightly declining base. There is some evidence that at long last it is beginning to flatten out.
We propose that there should be two quotas—a Community quota and a British quota. It is a simple concept. When we look back in perhaps five years or less we shall see that the British film industry was not as aware as it should have been of the dangers which it would face as a result of the Government going far beyond what was necessary in order to get this country into the Common Market.

Mr. Shore: I should like to put to my hon. Friend what has always seemed to me to be a common sense point about his case for a separate and strong British film quota. I understand that no other film industry in the world faces the scale and intensity of competition in the English language that we face. The obvious reason is that the great film-making country of the world is also an English-speaking country; namely, the United States. Therefore, the American film industry competes with the British industry far more than it competes with any other country's industry. That must be so as long as people enjoy watching films made in their own language rather than a dubbed version or films with captions written underneath. There is no point in talking about the British being in the same position as the Italians or the French. They are not, because American films do not compete with the Italians and French in the same way. It is precisely because of this sharing of a common tongue that my hon. Friend's case for a special arrangement for the British film industry is so unanswerably powerful.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. This is indeed the case. This is made even stronger by the fact that if we enter the Community we shall meet a new concept, one which does not exist in this country; that is, the concept of a cultural area. The German cultural area embraces Austria. The concept of a film's origin is based on language. We shall be faced with a unique situation, one that is not faced by any of the countries of the Six. This is one of


the things which were left uncertain and which reduced the industry to a state of confusion at the conference held at the end of last year.
It is likely that our cultural area, through the English language, will embrace not only America but also India and any other country where the film is made originally in English. Our industry will be in a unique position. No other film industry of the Six has so large a cultural area. The German cultural area includes Switzerland and Austria, and the French cultural area includes some areas of Africa. But no other country is in the position of having competition from countries which are at the same level of development or, in terms of totality of production, at a higher level. That is the basic problem upon which my right hon. Friend has put his finger.
We are, therefore, moving into an existing situation with an industry and a country with quite different traditions, outlook and problems. We are being forced into a sort of procrustean bed which already exists. Insufficient changes have been made by the Government. Instead of trying to persuade film industries in other countries that profound changes needed to be made in order to enable our industry to accommodate itself easily to the new situation, it seems that the contrary has occurred. Instead of doing that, the Government have placed shackles upon our industry which are unnecessarily tight and are not required by the nature of the Community and are certainly not observed by existing member States.
For those reasons I believe that the Committee, having thrown away the opportunity which we had just now to preserve something from the wreck, should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I oppose these Amendments, but for reasons rather different from those I mentioned in the debate on the previous group of Amendments.
The Amendments arise first with the question of once again attempting to draw a distinction between that which is of British origin and that which is of Community origin. Running through our whole debate, not only on the film industry but in previous debates, a quite errone-

ous distinction has been drawn between the Community over there and the British here. We are discussing a situation in which "the Community" includes us and in which we are part of that Community and an equal member of it. Therefore, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is suggesting that what we ought to do in the case of the film industry is to have two quotas: a quota for the Community—that is, all our friends in the Community who in every other sense are equal to us but in this sense have a special quota of their own—and then a quota for British films.
This is both wrong and unnecessary, because the size of the quota is a matter for the independent determination of Britain. Therefore, if Britain feels that the quota is being increasingly taken up by the films of other members of the Community, she can increase that quota and, therefore, give more elbow room for her own films and restrict the number of American films which can be shown in Great Britain.
The hon. Gentleman has made great play of the fact that our major competitor here is the United States and that that puts us in a special position because we speak English and the Americans, therefore, are able to export their films to this country with much greater ease than they would be able to export them to other members of the enlarged Community. That argument, and the intervention of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), is based upon a misconception. It is true that we face competition in the English language but we are not talking about a quota in which American films are included. The position of American films will remain precisely the same after the passing of the Clause as it was before.
We are saying that for the purposes of the quota any film produced in any of the member countries under exactly the same conditions shall be treated with equality, not only in the British market but in the other markets of the Community. It is perfectly reasonable for the hon. Member for Putney to object to this. But if he objects to it it cannot be on the grounds that it is unfair to the film industry. It must be because he does not like that kind of Community.
The point was raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It goes to the heart of the concept of


the Community to say that there shall not be equal trading within the Community, because that is one of the basic principles of the Community. To say that British films shall have a superior position within the British market and to demand equal terms within the markets of the rest of the Community is to have one's cake and eat it and is saying that trading should not be encouraged within the Community.
We have always agreed, even those who oppose the EEC, on the principle of free trade with Europ.

Mr. Fell: rose—

Mr. Gummer: Surely those who supported the concept of a free trade area instead of the EEC would not suggest that there should be a special quota for British films which was over and above the quota for all the countries participating in that free trade area. I believe that it is wrong, therefore, to argue on the one hand that the trouble with the EEC is that it does not give enough free trade, and, on the other hand, that in this specific case there should be a special form of protection for the film industry. Can I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell)?

Mr. Fell: It does not matter.

Mr. Shore: Can I make the point that an hon. Member on the Government side made earlier about the distinction between cat food, motor cars and films? There are elements of overlap and common ground between these three commodities but there are also differences. One of the differences is that the film represents something which is peculiar to the culture, expression, feeling and tradition of a particular people. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) obviously does not understand these things. But as long as these things matter we shall want to have a separate British film industry, as we shall want to have many other forms of separate British culture and expression.

Mr. Gummer: It is fascinating to see the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) castigate someone who disagrees with him as not understanding and also using language which not many years ago he would have attacked with all the virulence that a Socialist internationalist could command.

Mr. Shore: How does the hon. Member know?

Mr. Gummer: Because I have had the great pleasure of reading attacks made on hon. Members of my party by the right hon. Gentleman, saying how narrow-minded they were for making precisely that kind of statement. He can go on posing as the arch-Blimp of all times but he cannot do so and continue to sit on the Opposition benches, and he would not find a place on these benches. He will have to look at some other Parliament.
If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that there is something special about British films we would all agree, but we all have enough confidence in British culture, British language and British films to think they can compete against French, German and Italian films without the help of the right hon. Member for Stepney. His help would probably make it more difficult for them to compete, as it did when his disastrous term in the Department of Economic Affairs was brought so rapidly to a close. The right hon. Gentleman cannot suggest that the whole future of Britain, British things and British attitudes depends upon his help. We have got along very well without it up to now, and I believe we shall continue to do so.
Of course there is something special about British films, but what we are really saying in opposing the Amendment is that the nature of the British film is such that it is capable of competing on equal terms when there is fair trading. We agree that it is difficult for the British film to compete with American films on equal terms, for all kinds of historic and present reasons, but we do not agree that there is something about the Community situation which demands that we should have protection not from the Americans but from the French, Germans and Italians.
I hope that in summing up this part of the debate my hon. Friend the Minister will indicate that the Government would be prepared, if it seemed at some time that the quota was too small and that we were not protected properly against American films, to recommend that the quota be increased, so that we could have a Community quota larger than the present 30 per cent. Many of us who look to build in Europe an understanding of each other's cultures which will deepen and broaden our own cultures would like more


opportunity to see films produced among our friends in the Community.
What saddens me is that the hon. Member for Putney is, clearly, frightened not that the British film industry cannot compete with people who are unfairly competing but that it cannot compete even with people who are fairly competing. That is a very dangerous and wrong attitude. It is also a short-sighted attitude, because we should be saying that for the sake of protecting the British film industry we shall restrict its markets in the rest of the Community. If we in Britain say that our film industry must be looked after in a special way, all the other countries will have to do the same.
What I really object to is that the hon. Gentleman says that he speaks on behalf of the film industry. Yet all of us who have discussed the matter have heard that the film industry has made no objections to the original agreements with the Community and the Community statements which the Clause brings into effect. There was no outcry. None of the responsible bodies said that they must have this, that and the other. I have carefully read, and I re-read this morning, all the statements made by the Labour Government. At no point did anyone say that one of the essential things we should have to protect by negotiations was a special position for our film industry. But the directives existed. The Labour Government knew that that was precisely one of the areas which would impinge on our national life.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that until the Government introduced the Bill containing this Clause no one had the slightest idea that the Government would decide to sell the British film industry down the river?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman uses very emotive and unacceptable language. The Government discussed with every part of the film industry the effects of the directives, which are merely spelt out here. Those directives clearly demand that all the film industries of the EEC should be treated equally within each member country. The hon. Gentleman knew that. It is one of the reasons why he has been against our entry into

the Common Market. His industry knew it, but it made no objections.
Yet again, the Opposition are asking us, first, to accept that, although their objections are not shared by the people whom they most concern, we must uphold them—that although the sugar islands do not accept the Opposition's worries about sugar, that although New Zealand does not accept their worries about New Zealand, that although the film industry does not accept their worries about the film industry, the Committee must accept their worries.
The second thing we are asked to accept is that although the Labour Government when negotiating our entry made no point about the film industry, never raised the question, never considered it a point of importance in the negotiations, suddenly it becomes one of the key matters.
Therefore, I believe that it would be wrong for us to depart from the spirit of our entry into the Community by suggesting that the British film industry is so apathetic that it cannot compete on equal terms with our neighbours. I believe that it is a great film industry which will compete on equal terms and do extremely well within the Community.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Emery: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) on another spirited defence of the British film industry, an industry which in many ways does not need defending. I appreciated my hon. Friend's speech, but it was not essential on these Amendments. The Opposition, for all their humour, have entirely misunderstood the Clause, and the Amendments are unnecessary.
Amendment No. 122 appears to have only a descriptive effect. It could, if accompanied by other Amendments elsewhere, provide for a special quota of films to be shown in cinemas. However, there is no such Amendment, so I cannot see that that would be of any particular use. All that it proceeds to do is to describe Community films, which are already
a class distinct from other foreign films


in the Clause, as "special quota films". If that is not a linguistic nicety, I do not know what is.
The effect of the Clause is that films will have to be registered as British films, British quota films, Community films, or foreign films. Therefore, it would appear to be pointless to require Community films to be registered as "special films".
Strangely enough, the Clause meets the argument that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) adduced. Once the Clause is enacted, we shall provide for films to be registered in one of the four categories. Subsection (1) makes it clear that Community films must
be registered…as a class distinct from other foreign films".
There would be no point in adding the word "special"; it would be unnecessary and meaningless.
It could be said that the Amendment was put forward so as to enable its supporters to argue that there should be a special quota for Community films to be shown in Britain separate from the quota of British films. That argument has not been propounded. At that stage the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West would apply. That is apart from the fact that the establishment of such a separate quota—there was some indication that this might have been the view of some hon. Members opposite—would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the EEC films directive and contrary to our own agreements in GATT. So the argument falls on both counts.
A separate Community films quota would require cinemas in the United Kingdom to show a proportion of foreign films, which they are not at present required to show. Is that what hon. Gentlemen opposite want? I did not hear it in their speeches, but, if it is, perhaps we can know before we are asked to vote on the Amendment. If that is what they require the Committee to do it is certainly very contrary to what the film industry would wish to support. Indeed, I think it is contrary to their normal approach to Europe generally.
To turn quickly to Amendment No. 123, this does very much the thing the objection to which I have already stated on Amendment No. 122. It is difficult

to understand the object of the hon. Member in proposing the Amendment because it is clear from the Clause as drafted that Community films are foreign films and in that category alone are distinct from British films.
Therefore, I am bound to say in all honesty that I think that the Opposition have misunderstood the Clause. After all, we can all admit that we have made a mistake occasionally.

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman can.

Mr. Emery: I have done so already once today, if the right hon. Gentleman will recall. I remind the Committee of the argument about the Welsh; I said that we have had no Welsh feature films and that the only way I could see a Welsh feature film coming forward was by dubbing. If the Opposition Amendments have been passed they would have stopped Welsh films from being British quota films. I am delighted for the sake of the Welsh that we have been able to defeat those previous Amendments.
However, as I was saying, I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite have genuinely misunderstood the point. The Clause brings in a definition of Community films as being distinct from both British and foreign films, and I cannot really see any point in wasting the time of the Committee in dividing on the Amendment.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: When the hon. Gentleman replied to the previous debate I was able to compliment him on having some grasp of the complexities of the film industry, and certainly a grasp greater than that demonstrated by some of his hon. Friends, although, perhaps, that was not saying a great deal by way of compliment to the Minister. However, I tried to help him and said that, although I felt he was grossly mistaken, he spoke from knowledge. I was glad of that. On this occasion I think he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. He thinks I have. We shall see.
If Amendments No. 122 and 123 are taken together—and it is the object of the exercise that they should be taken together—the hon. Gentleman will then see how the Clause will read if the Amendments are made:
On and after the entry date Community films shall be registered under the Films Acts 1960 to 1970 as a class distinct from other


foreign films and distinct from British films and be registered as special quota films, and the register shall be kept accordingly.
The Amendments would create a separate category of Community films as distinct from foreign films; there would be foreign films, Community films and British films; there would be three separate categories. I admit that this is second best to what I had originally sought.
The hon. Gentleman said one thing with which I agree, that this is not a matter on which the Committee should be divided. I agree with him, but for reasons different from his. I agree because we are acting under the guillotine. I agree because anytime we can save by not having a Division can be used for another debate. I agree because the Government have already defeated—wrongly defeated—the main agument on previous Clauses. Therefore, since we have still another Amendment to propose to this Clause, and a debate on that, and, I hope, a debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" as well, on this occasion, although I believe that the Amendments are perfectly justified, perfectly sensible and perfectly proper, I would not, in all the circumstances, wish to ask my hon. Friends to take up the Committee's time by having a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 469, in page 13, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
My Amendments have been rejected; responsible, reasonable and improving Amendments have been rejected. I am relieved to see that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) has left the Chamber. In our debate on a previous Amendment he attributed to me the statement that the Amendment was unnecessary, although what I had said was that hon. Gentlemen opposite might argue that it was unnecessary. I thought it was necessary.
The Government might say that Amendment No. 469 is a wrecking Amendment. I am not saying it is a wrecking Amendment, I merely for fend the possibility that that might be one objection to it. As we have failed where we have deserved to succeed, perhaps on this occasion we shall succeed when

our entitlement to success may not be so immediately obvious.
The Amendment prevents a Community film from being registered as a British film. If the Amendment were accepted we should have to have a Report stage and, on Report, a further Amendment could be tabled to create the concept of a Community film equivalent to but not the same as a British film. The Amendment tries once again to separate the categories, which is made necessary by the peculiar nature of the British film industry with its worldwide English language connections. The Amendment accepts the Community film and seeks to establish it as equivalent to but not the same as a British film.
I hope that the Minister will not turn down the Amendment as he turned down the previous ones, perhaps not because they lacked merit but because he failed to understand them. On this occasion the Amendment is a simple straightforward proposition which I hope will commend itself to the Committee. I hope the Minister will not reject it simply because its acceptance would make necessary a Report stage.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls: This is the second debate that we have had on the implications for the film industry of going into Europe. The more one hears the more one comes to the conclusion that it is impossible for the people who are dedicated to our not going into Europe to understand that we are going in more for the sake of creating wider free trade than to enter a community.
We hear phrases like "Community film" and "British film", but once we go into the Community it will be a Community which includes Britain and we shall have to take a wider view. It will not be possible to put up quotas against Community services and, according to the Amendment, against Community films. That is one of the many things that we shall have to accept on joining the Community. If we believe that it is right to accept the free movement of labour, in a similar way we shall have to accept that the British film industry will not be able to have barriers and quotas of this sort. It is an experience which the European film industries in the existing Community have already had to accept. They


have had similar assistance in their own industries since the Community started, but they have had to accept that it is no longer suitable to have barriers of this sort. They have had to accept a much wider form of competition within the Community as a whole.
There is evidence that the film industries of the Six have had no difficulty in adjusting to this situation. I find it hard to believe that our own industry, with its great technical know-how, its world-famous studios with all their technical expertise, and not least our artistic talent, which is second to none, will not be able to stand going into the Community and facing wider competition.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and those hon. Members with him who seek for genuine reasons to try to protect the British film industry are doing it a great disservice. I am sure that the industry can stand up to the wider competition and do very well. There will be a net gain by accepting the extra opportunities which will accrue to the industry by going into Europe. Let us look a little wider. Let us not bury our heads in the sand, saying that we cannot open the doors of competition to our film industry because it is not able to cope. Let us hold our heads high and say that it can cope and do well in Europe. I am confident that, given the opportunity which entry into Europe will present to the film industry, it will be able to do itself well and compete in Europe. It will not be necessary to have the Amendment.

Mr. Emery: We now turn to Amendment 469. In doing so, it is important to understand what the Amendment will do. Its purpose, as far as I can understand it, is to disqualify Community film makers, other than film makers from the United Kingdom, when we are in the Community, from being able to make what we term a British film.
The effect of the Amendment will be that the section of the Films Act, 1960, which deals with the determination whether a film is to be registered as British or foreign will not be amended in the manner necessary to meet what would be our Common Market obligations. Whether that is the definition or not, it seems contrary to what those of

us who wish to see entry into Europe would want to bring about. It is basic to the terms of entry to the Common Market that any restrictions relating to film production which are unfavourable to film makers who are nationals or companies of other member States should on national grounds be removed. For this purpose the subsection will amend Section 17 of the Films Act, 1960, by providing that a film maker, whether an individual or a company from another member State, will be able to make a British film on the same terms as a British film maker. That is not to say that Community films or films made by Community film makers will necessarily be British.
There are other detailed requirements which must be followed before a film can be registered as British. We have gone over this matter this evening and I do not intend to repeat it. These include, in Section 17(2) of the 1960 Act, the provision,
that the studio, if any, used in making the film was in a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland; and"—
most important—
that not less than the requisite amount of labour costs"—
the salary and wages paid to those engaged in making the film—shall be paid to
British subjects or citizens of the Republic of Ireland or persons ordinarily resident in a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland.
That is the structure as we know it.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) described the German concept of requiring X, Y and Z. By "X, Y and Z", I mean the producer, the director, and the people in charge of the lighting, and so on. We do not spell it out in the same way, but we require, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, that 75 or 80 per cent. of the labour costs shall be paid to British people. This is extremely high, and, by some standards, might be considered somewhat restrictive; but it is there as a defence of British film interests.
Subsection (3) of the Clause does nothing to alter these provisions. They are there for the protection of British film production which the hon. Gentleman has enthusiastically supported in the speeches


he had made today. Therefore, I am surprised that he should move an Amendment the effect of which would be to discourage or even to prevent a film maker from a member State coming to this country to make a film. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would strongly advocate the opportunities for workers in the British film industry which the subsection could create.
We have film studios and technical facilities—technicians, artistes and talented specialist staff—second to none in the world. These attributes are and should be attractive to firm makers from other nations. If film makers wish to come here to use our talents to make British films, surely the hon. Gentleman would wish to encourage them. Certainly the Government want to encourage them.
I believe I am on strong ground in urging hon. Members to reject the Amendment. I believe I am speaking for the interests of the workers in the film industry. Therefore, I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman could possibly not support me in that contention. I believe that he has moved the Amendment for purely probing purposes to ascertain whether the Government are interested in seeking to defend workers in the industry. I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates we can provide that defence. By pressing the Amendment to a Division the hon. Gentleman will be working contrary to the best interests of people in the industry. I cannot imagine that that is what he wants.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am sure the Under-Secretary is sincere in the oratory to which he has just treated us, but he is mistaken. The hon. Gentleman is right about the consequence of accepting the Amendment. He is wrong about what happens in other Community countries.
This is another example where the Government have gone completely beyond what they have to do and are going completely beyond what is done in other Community countries. There is no reason why somebody should not come to this country to make a film. This is understood and will continue to be the case whether we go into the Common Market or not. Of course, distinguished foreign directors come here to make films and occasionally British directors go to other countries to make films there.
The hon. Gentleman is forgetting the effect of the Amendment on the provisions of the Films Act, 1960. The Amendment seeks to remove from Clause 8 subsection (3) which provides that:
The requirements for the registration of a film as a British film under section 17 of the Films Act 1960 shall be modified, with effect from the entry date, by inserting after the words 'of the Republic of Ireland', wherever those words occur in section 17(2)(a) and (3), the words 'or of any country that is a member State'".
If we look at Section 17 of the Films Act, 1960, we can see where the hon. Gentleman has gone wrong. The Section says that the maker of the film must be
…either a British subject or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland…".
In other words a film maker could qualify for the British quota if he were British or Irish. What is now being said is that the maker of the film can be a citizen of any one of the Community countries.
In principle there may be nothing wrong in this, but in practice we see that this is not a principle which is followed in any of the other European countries. The current regulations deal with the situation in Germany, France and Italy and we see that in those countries they have a Community quota. There is a fundamental misunderstanding on the Government Front Bench. They seem to imagine that because a Community quota exists, it is necessary to dismantle other protections for the British film industry. The Government, to get into the Community are going beyond what is necessary, and they are certainly going beyond what is done by other member States in the Community.
The regulations pertaining to Germany require a film maker to have German nationality and German quota status. A film must be produced by a resident of Germany who makes films exclusively or nearly exclusively on his own behalf. There is a tight definition of the situation in the German regulations and no attempt has been made to loosen the definition. Germany operates within the Community quota, but that definition still remains. They still stick firmly to the proposition of nationality. The Government have got rather mixed up in their ideas of a quota for Community purposes, and this is clear when one sees that protections to


determine what is a national film are as strong as ever in the Community.
Furthermore, in the French regulations a film must be produced by a French producer and shot in studios in France or in French overseas territories. There is an indentical situation in Italy. Therefore, all the countries of the Six have preserved the principle of nationality in terms of film making. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that the British Government are going beyond anything done by the other countries in the Community since their legislation does not provide this degree of liberalism.

9.15 p.m.

Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman claims that the Bill in general and this proposition in particular are necessary in order to enable us to fulfil our obligations as a member of the Community, he is talking transparent nonsense. I have proved it to be so by my references to the situation in these other countries, taken from a current document issued by the Board of Trade under the aegis of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association. The document was issued on 5th November, 1971, and sets out the situations in the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy. No changes have been made since that date. It describes the situations in those three main countries of the EEC and the Bill takes us well beyond them.

For these reasons, I take the view that this Amendment is highly necessary and I greatly regret that the Government will not accept it. Because of pressure of time, because we have to get in a debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," I will not press the Amendment to a Division. But I regret that the Government persist in their opposition to it. Under protest, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Probert: I intervene briefly because of an answer given earlier to me by the Under-Secretary of State in which he admitted quite frankly—and I respect him for it—that the Welsh language is not a Community language. Clause 8(4) says:

In this subsection 'foreign language film' means a film in which the dialogue is mainly in a foreign language.
From what the hon. Gentleman said, by implication one can deduce that Welsh is recognised by the Community as a foreign language.
This is an insult to the 600,000people in Wales who speak the Welsh language daily; it is an insult also to my mother, whose language it was; it is an insult to my wife, who speaks it daily; indeed, it is an insult to the people of the whole of these islands, in which Welsh is the oldest living language, with the possible exception of Scottish Gaelic.
I realise the pressure of time under the guillotine so I will put only one point, with an appeal to the Solicitor-General who is himself a Welshman. The Community is accepting Irish Gaelic as a Community language. Yet, not so many Irish speak Irish Gaelic as Welsh people speak Welsh. I may say that I have no personal axe to grind here, because I do not myself speak Welsh. But I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the negotiations which will continue when we enter the EEC to see to it that Welsh becomes accepted as a Community language and that we shall not place upon the people of Wales the stigma which the present provision in the Bill would bring to them.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) with great interest but I think that he is labouring under a certain misapprehension. Surely it is conferring a mark of distinction upon his language—the language of the country where I was born—to describe it as a foreign language. It is distinguishing it from the other languages in the United Kingdom and marking it out for special attention. The Welsh people are afraid that their language will disappear; they are afraid of losing their individuality. If one asks for one's individuality to be maintained one must not complain if it is put into a special category.
I want to make a brief reference to the subject really under discussion, not that subject, although it is interesting. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has throughout his series of Amendments made the point that he wants more restriction than we do and


that the Government are giving away too much. It must be pointed out that, although he has spoken at great length and we have had one vote earlier, he has not seen fit to press any more of his Amendments to a Division.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The guillotine.

Mr. Cooke: Oh, the guillotine, the guillotine! The guillotine allows ten more minutes of this debate. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Opposition Whip would like to get up and make that remark from a standing position.
I do not wish to digress into areas that will take me out of order. We have plenty of time for Divisions if the Opposition thought fit to press these Amendments. They have not done so because there is no measure of support for what the hon. Member said, despite the fact that he went at a great rate and for a long time. The Opposition have been making trivial points on this Clause, which should go through unamended simply because it will give the film industry a greater measure of freedom and it will make sure that the British film industry works in proper partnership with its European friends so that perhaps, who knows, it may be able to play a bigger part in the film affairs of the world, tackling not only America on its own ground but perhaps even other parts of the world, such as Asia and Japan.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) for raising the subject of the position of the Welsh language in the event of our joining the Community. The Chancellor of the Duchy was good enough to write to me recently and in that letter he said that it would be proper to translate certain documents in most common usage into the Welsh language.

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but if the Welsh language is to be discussed now it should be discussed in the context of Clause 8 and films. I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman now because I thought he was about to develop the argument at some length and I felt that I ought to warn him early.

Mr. Hughes: The point I wish to make. Sir Robert, and I accept your guidance on this, is the fear that a film made in the

Welsh language would be described as a foreign film within the ambit of this Clause. This is obviously a matter of great concern to myself and my right hon. Friend from the Principality. We would deeply resent the description of the Welsh language, in relation to a film or anything else, connected with the Bill, as a foreign language.

Mr. Rippon: As the right hon. Gentleman says, we have had some correspondence about the status of the Welsh language and the importance of ensuring its proper recognition. We all recognise this. I can say that the position of the Welsh language is in no way prejudiced by anything in the Bill and certainly it is not described as a foreign language for the purposes of a film quota. It would be in the British quota as one of the languages of origin of the country concerned.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that explanation. It may be that we shall require a fuller explanation in due course. We must insist that the status of the Welsh language is fully safeguarded, in or out of the Community. If we do enter the Community the Welsh language will be the oldest spoken language in the Community and we shall demand that it be given the respect due to it. I will not develop this further because I should be out of order, but I give notice to the Government that this is a matter to which we shall return in due course.

Mr. John Gorst: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, can he give the Committee some guidance on how many films are made in the Welsh language at present so that we can get this into some perspective?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman plainly does not know very much about Wales and has not visited the Principality recently, otherwise he would know that a large number of films on BBC Television and Harlech Television are in Welsh. The number of films in Welsh which appear in the cinemas of Wales are few and far between, but films are made in the Welsh language, and no doubt an increasing number will be made in future.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Despite the assurance of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, there is little doubt, from


reading subsection (4), that a Welsh film would, ipso facto, be regarded as a foreign film. There is nothing in the Clause referring to countries of origin. The last two lines of subsection (4) are unambiguous. They state:
In this subsection 'foreign language film' means a film in which the dialogue is mainly in a foreign language".
A foreign language is other than a language officially known to the Treaty of Rome. The Welsh language is not officially known to the Treaty and therefore it is a foreign language.
As a Welshman whose first language is Welsh, I regard that as a crowning insult. It rouses me to righteous anger, similar to the anger which Lloyd George showed in the House many decades ago when the Welsh language was derided. He reminded the House that the Welsh language had been spoken by kings and princes when the English were swinging by their tails in the forests of the Baltic. That is a quotation from one of the greatest Members of which the House ever boasted.
This is not a question of the British quota. It is a question of an insult which, albeit unwittingly, is made to the Welsh language. The Clause gives the Welsh language the status and stigma of a foreign language.

Mr. Rippon: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a stigma on English that it is a foreign language to an Italian?

Mr. Morgan: That depends on the attitude of the Italian. We are discus-

sing a British Measure. What description an Italian might put on the English language in a measure of his country is his concern; but this is our concern. I do not like to see my language referred to in British legislation as a foreign language for the convenience of foreigners.

Mr. Emery: I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) realises that I would in no way wish to pass any insult on his wife or any of his relatives. In reply to the point made by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes), may I point out that we are talking about feature films. Such films are not made for television. We are discussing films which are defined in the 1960 and 1970 Acts.
Welsh is not treated as a foreign language for the purpose of the film industry and the quotas made under the Bill. It is treated as one of the languages coming within the British quota. It is treated in exactly the same way as any other language spoken in a Community country, such as Romansch in Italy, which is treated as part of the Italian language and the Italian quota.
No insult, and no alteration in the quota structure, is involved in the Clause concerning the Welsh language or Welsh language firms, and I am sure that that will allow for singing in the valleys tonight.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 188, Noes 173.

Division No. 254.]
AYES
[9.29 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fidler, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Churchill, W. S.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clegg, Walter
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Atkins, Humphrey
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cooper, A. E.
Fortescue, Tim


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cordle, John
Gardner, Edward


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cormack, Patrick
Gibson-Watt, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Benyon, W.
Critchley, Julian
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Blaker, Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Goodhew, Victor


Boscawen, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Gorst, John


Bowden, Andrew
Dean, Paul
Gower, Raymond


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Drayson, G. B.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Gray, Hamish


Bryan, Paul
Dykes, Hugh
Grieve, Percy


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eden, Sir John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Grylls, Michael


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter
Gummer, Selwyn


Cary, Sir Robert 
Eyre, Reginald
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Chapman, Sydney
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hall, John (Wycombe)




Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McCrindle, R. A.
Rost, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sharples, Richard


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hawkins, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Simeons, Charles


Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Soref, Harold


Hiley, Joseph
Money, Ernle
Speed, Keith


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Spence, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Monro, Hector
Sproat, Iain


Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Stainton, Keith


Holt, Miss Mary
More, Jasper
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hornby, Richard
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Steel, David


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Morrison, Charles
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Murton, Oscar
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Neave, Airey
Stokes, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hunt, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Iremonger, T. L.
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


James, David
Nott, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Norman


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Temple, John M.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Osborn, John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Jopling, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kimball, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil
Walters, Dennis


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Kinsey, J. R.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Warren, Kenneth


Kirk, Peter
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Weatherill, Bernard


Kitson, Timothy
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wiggin, Jerry


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wilkinson, John


Lamont, Norman
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Winterton, Nicholas


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Redmond, Robert
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Le Marchant, Spencer
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)
Worsley, Marcus


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Longden, Gilbert
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



Loveridge, John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Luce, R. N.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


MacArthur, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Marcus Fox.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Ashton, Joe
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkinson, Norman
Ellis, Tom
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
English, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Evans, Fred
Kerr, Russell


Baxter, William
Ewing, Henry
Kinnock, Neil


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Faulds, Andrew
Lambie, David


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fell, Anthony
Lamborn, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lamond, James


Biffen, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Latham, Arthur


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Foley, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted


Body, Richard
Foot, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Booth, Albert
Ford, Ben
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lipton, Marcus


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)




Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamling, William
McBride, Neil


Cohen, Stanley
Hardy, Peter
McElhone, Frank


Concannon, J. D.
Harper, Joseph
McGuire, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Crawshaw, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Mackie, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Maclennan, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Horam, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Marks, Kenneth


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Marquand, David


Deakins, Eric
Hunter, Adam
Marsden, F.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Dempsey, James
Janner, Greville
Marten, Neil


Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Meacher, Michael


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Mendelson, John


Dunn, James A.
John, Brynmor
Mikardo, Ian







Millan, Bruce
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Prescott, John
Strang, Gavin


Milne, Edward
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Moate, Roger
Probert, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Molloy, William
Rankin, John
Torney, Tom


Molyneaux, James
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Urwin, T. W.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Varley, Eric G.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rowlands, Ted
Wainwright, Edwin


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sandelson, Neville
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Murray, Ronald King
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oakes, Gordon
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


O'Halloran, Michael
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Whitlock, William


O'Malley, Brian
Sillars, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Woof, Robert


Palmer, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis



Parker, John (Dagenham)
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pavitt, Laurie
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Mr. John Golding and


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Pentland, Norman
Stallard, A. W.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

COMPANIES

Sir Elwyn Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 471, in page 13, line 37, leave out subsection (1).
We turn to a somewhat esoteric part of the Bill, in that it deals with company law. The Clause is an attempt to bring company law in Great Britain into conformity with Community requirements. It is based on the directive of the Council of 9th March, 1968
on co-ordination of the safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community
The most important change in our law which is sought to be achieved by the Clause is to modify the ultra vires doctrine in it. No doubt every right hon. and hon. Member will be fully familiar with the doctrine of ultra vires in company law, although it may be less mother's milk to some of us than to others. As I understand it, a company cannot act as a legal person outside the powers defined in the objects clause of its memorandum. An act which is ultra vires the company is null and void in the same way as an act done by a local authority outside its statutory authority is null and void. If the company concludes a contract which is ultra vires, neither the company nor the other contracting party can sue upon it. It is unenforceable.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTONin the Chair]

It is not a problem which arises very often these days, because companies now make the range of objects which they set out in their memorandum cover a multiplicity of activity. The problem undoubtedly arises occasionally, but the view seems to be that although when the registered company was a comparatively new institution the ultra vires doctrine was useful in checking abuses, like an investor in a gold mine finding, as Professor Gower has described, that he was holding shares in a fried fish shop, nowadays its disadvantages outweigh its benefits. I hope that the fried fish shop phenomenon is a thing that nowadays comes rarely in our commercial activity.

In principle we have no objection to modification of the ultra vires rule, if that is done within the context and the ambit of a full restatement of our company law, but that is not the position here. The Clause tries to deal with a small corner of the company law. It is not an important corner. Indeed, I think the problem is somewhat academic now, and I believe that the absence of the Clause would not affect our entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Percy Grieve: If, as I suspect from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying, he considers that as part of a major reform of the company law the provision would in itself be a desirable reform, what conceivable objection does he see to making it now as part of the change in the law desirable on our adherence to the European Economic Community?

9.45 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: If the hon. and learned Gentleman does me the honour of listening to what I am about to say, he will perhaps understand why I am moving an Amendment to leave out subsection (1) from the Clause. My main objection is that subsection (1) is obscure and ambiguous, as indeed is the directive upon which it is based. The important matter is that a piecemeal change of this kind in a little bit of a very technical part of company law has repercussions, and is liable to have repercussions, over other branches of the law.
When I was Attorney-General I was constantly criticised by my then opposite number for piecemeal changes in the law, particularly in technical matters. It is happening here.
As I recollect from the days of the previous Administration, the Board of Trade was then working hard on a restatement of the company law, on a new Companies Bill. I take it that the sudden break which happens when one Administration succeeds another did not affect the work which was being done on company law. I expect that in the last two years the Department of Trade and Industry has continued that work. Indeed, as I understand it, a new Companies Bill is on the stocks for next Session, assuming that this Administration will still be in existence and will have taken some control over their legislative programme.
There it is. I do not want to be controversial on a theme which is so placid as the companies law, though at this hour a little refreshment is probably a very good thing for us all. I must ask the Minister for Trade why this has been thought necessary. Albeit that in principle it is not a bad thing to make this attempted adjustment to the ultra vires rule, why could we not have waited for a proper Bill to do the matter properly next Session? There is no urgency about this. It would not affect entry into the Common Market. Most of the rest of our company law would not present any difficulty.
I suspect that the Clause is a kind of sop in the Bill to render a little flesh in the naked skeleton with which we have been dealing up to now. It would have been very unattractive to have had a four-

page Bill, so the Government have thrown in a little extra dealing with company law to give a convincing air to an otherwise bald and skeletal structure. That may be an explanation, but perhaps I am being a little unkind in putting it in that way.
I have heard from some of my colleagues in the Temple who are expert in this branch of company law that the attempt of subsection (1) to give effect to Article 9 of the Council's directive, which I find somewhat obscure and confusing in itself, is a highly unsatisfactory attempt, because it leaves much that is ambiguous and propounds much that is obscure. They have told me that they believe that the subsection will give rise to a good deal of litigation.
It is curiously thought in the Committee that lawyers regard that as an excellent thing. That is utterly incorrect in practice. What lawyers like are certainty and clarity in the law. There is plenty of litigation about—there is no lack of it—and we do not want to create an easy opportunity for more. Nobody except lawyers in the Committee will believe me when I say these things, but this is in fact the true situation, and it is because we believe that the subsection is neither clear nor certain that we think it ought to go.
The aim of Article 9 of the directive upon which this subsection is based, and which, indeed, the subsection seeks to embody into our law, is to protect the interests of third parties who bona fide enter into legal relations with what are called the "organs" of a corporation when it transpires that those organs have acted ultra vires the memorandum or articles of that corporation.
"Organ" in this context is a continental expression which is never expressly defined in the directive. Some sort of definition of it can perhaps be found in Article 2(1)(d) which says:
The appointment, termination of office and names of the persons who either as a body constituted pursuant to law or as members of any such body: (i) are authorised to represent the company in dealings with third parties and in legal proceedings, (ii) take part in the administration, supervision or control of the company. It must appear from the disclosure whether the persons authorised to represent the company may do so alone or must act jointly.


It would seem from that language that the organ is the person or group of persons vested with power to bind the corporate body, and to issue and accept the service of writs on its behalf, and/or being concerned, as the Article says
in the administration, supervision or control
of the corporate body.
It would accordingly seem that "organ" in this context is the office or institution within the corporation vested with power to bind it.
Subsection (1) of this Clause would appear to be ambiguous on its face, because it renders and translates the phrase or concept of "organ" as "the directors". It does not state expressly whether this means the directors individually, or collectively as a board of directors, or both. The phrase in the subsection
any transaction decided on by the directors
might be taken to imply only the second alternative I have mentioned, namely, any transaction decided on by the board of directors. If that is right—and no doubt the right hon Gentleman will enlighten us upon these matters—the subsection does not cover, for example, the managing director acting individually, even, presumably, where he enjoys very wide powers which can be delegated to him under paragraphs 107 to 109 of Table A in Schedule 1 to the Companies Act.
It has been put to me by practitioners in this field that the Clause should have specified what is in fact intended, whether it be the board of directors, a director, a managing director or whatever the intention of the Government may be. Perhaps we shall have a clue about this in the Minister's reply.
Article 9 of the directive indicates that the abolition of the ultra vires principle is not meant to extend to acts of organs that exceed the powers conferred or permitted to be conferred by law. This applies only to acts the law allows, but the memorandum and/or the articles of association do not. That would seem to be the meaning of the first part of the first paragraph in Article 9
Acts done by the organs of the company shall be binding upon it even if those acts are not within the objects of the company, unless such acts exceed the powers that the

law confers or allows to be conferred on those organs.
That does not seem to be very clear in the transcription of the idea in subsection (1). Subsection (1) provides that
…any transaction decided on by the directors shall be deemed to be one which it is within the capacity of the company to enter into…
That seems to be regardless of both the memorandum and articles of association provisions and the general law. It is right, however, that it goes on to say, in relation to such transactions presumably, that the directors
…shall be deemed to be free of any limitation under the memorandum or articles of association".
It could mean that they are not free of any limitation imposed by the general law. Perhaps this matter may be clarified.
I find difficulty in the language of subsection (1) in speaking of transactions which are within the capacity of the company to enter into. The word "capacity" is such an all-embracing word that it is perhaps difficult to envisage things which a company cannot do. It must, I suppose, be contrasted with things that a company must not do—for instance, enter into an unlawful contract. Transactions a company must not enter into are presumably to be treated as they are treated before the Bill comes into effect and will continue to be unenforceable whether or not the third party is in good faith.
One tentative example of "capacity" which I invite the Committee to consider might be the ownership of a highway qua highway. No company or any other person, as opposed to the public at large, or the Crown, can own a public highway. If it cannot be owned of course it cannot be sold. But what if a fraudulent managing director of a company in this country purports to sell to a foreigner a slice of the M1? I do not know whether there would be any buyer for it, but I suppose if it were offered on terms of telling the foreigner that he could levy tolls on it, then it might seem an attractive proposition.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The more usual example is Brooklyn Bridge.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Brooklyn Bridge is perhaps a more obvious example that


might be well known in Amsterdam, Utrecht or wherever it may be.

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the transaction which took place just after the war when an ingenious intelligence officer on Lord Mountbatten's staff conveyed the entire state of Burma to some rather speculative-minded Indians.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was there to pre vent the completion of the transaction. Let me be not diverted by too many illustrations—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Business relating to Procedure may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until One o'clock or for a period of two hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Fox.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I was dealing with the potential sale of a slice of the M1 and the attractive possibilities were raised of the sale of Burma and the Brooklyn Bridge. I was raising the question—I shall be fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's answer in due course—of a fraudulent managing director of a company in England purporting to a foreigner to sell a slice of the M1, telling him, as I have suggested, that he could levy tolls upon it. If that unfortunate foreigner, attracted by such a dizzy prospect, did not know English law and was behaving in good faith, he could, if the subsection stands, be entitled to obtain damages from the company for his loss of what would be a considerable prospective revenue. Perhaps we shall be told the answer to that interesting question.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTONin the Chair]

Regarding the question of good faith, I confess that I find myself not greatly assisted by what it means in this context. There is no guidance to anything which might be called a definition. Article 9 seems to contemplate actual knowledge of the memorandum or articles before the party can be shut out and deemed not to be acting in good faith if in those circumstances he still seeks to enforce the ultra vires contract. Article 9 goes on to say
that the third party knew that the act was outside those objects or could not in view of the circumstances be unaware thereof.
That follows these words:
Member States may provide that the company shall not be bound where such acts are outside the objects of the company if it proves that the third party knew that the act was outside those objects…".
For my part I confess I see no great distinction between proof that the third party knew that the act was outside the objects and that the third party could not in view of the circumstances be unaware thereof.

Perhaps that is the kind of distinction that lawyers enjoy in drafting this sort of article. Nevertheless, do these words, and does that somewhat opaque reference, cover recklessness by the third party? In principle it should, and perhaps it is intended that recklessness should be covered.

But what about mere negligence? Can a third party be deemed and considered to be acting in good faith if he is negligent about entering into the transaction in question? Again, is the test of good faith subjective or objective? Is it to be different for third parties in England as opposed to third parties outside the shores of Great Britain?

I do not find these questions easy to answer. I have little doubt that right hon. and hon. Members will have their own questions to ask on this subsection. It does not seem either accurately to reflect Article 9, so far as that is capable of being done, or to leave the state of our law, as I suggested at the beginning of my speech, clear and certain if we make this subsection part of it. For this reason, I submit that not only should the subsection be left out, but, better still, that Clause 9 should be left out, and in


the next Session of Parliament we should deal with this small and somewhat academic point as part of an overall re-statement of our company law.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has done his best to find fault with the subsection, but has made very few bricks with very little straw. There is nothing wrong with the subsection, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it.
The subsection is perfectly desirable in itself. Apart from our entry into the Common Market, all lawyers of any experience and all laymen who have come across the law have the view that the ultra vires law is out of date. Indeed, the Cohen Report, as long ago as 1945, said:
We consider that, as now applied to companies, the ultra vires doctrine serves no positive purpose but is, on the other hand, a cause of unnecessary prolixity and vexation. We think that every company, whether incorporated before or after the passing of a new Companies Act, should, notwithstanding anything omitted from its memorandum of association, have as regards third parties the same powers as an individual. Existing provisions in memoranda as regards the powers of companies and any like provisions introduced into memoranda in future should operate solely as a contract between a company and its shareholders as to the powers exercisable by the directors.
In other words, third parties should not be damnified by any exercise of powers beyond those given in the memoranda.

Mr. Brynmor John: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman include in his strictures of people who have experience in this sphere the Jenkins Committee, which found no such evidence for the abolition of the ultra vires rule?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That is an exaggeration. The Jenkins Committee did not go as far as the Cohen Committee. Jenkins recommended significant modifications of it. I do not wish to get involved in the various Jenkinses involved in this matter. Lord Jenkins, as I think he then was, recommended modifications on the lines of the Clause. It is now generally recognised that the ultra vires doctrine works unfairly against the individual, who is damnified by it in his contracts with a company, and in favour of the company. I should be surprised if, when we come to legislate fully on companies in the next

part of the Bill, the Opposition vote against the abolition of the ultra vires doctrine, because I am sure that will, or should be, included.
The only objection to this provision is that it does not go far enough. To my mind it still gives the company a defence if the managing director, rather than the directors, goes beyond his powers. Since we are now legislating on this matter, it is a pity to stop so short.
It would be absurd for the Opposition to vote against such a marginal matter, which is merely a difference of opinion. Those in favour of the individual and against the corporation should welcome the step that is being taken tonight and any opposition to it is quite absurd.
Some interesting problems are raised by this modest Clause. One must first consider how modest the provision is. It is an attempt—I am sure a successful one—to bring our company law into line with the minima required by the Common Market. It shows how far our company law has already advanced in that it is only in this respect that it is necessary to do so. Common Market law has various requirements relating to disclosure, protection of minority interests, take-over bids and similar matters, all of which are already embodied in our law. I hope they will be developed in the future, but it shows how far we are advanced that we need only this small Amendment to our company law to comply with the requirements of the Community. It is surely a great credit to our company law that, in advance of our future partners in the Community, we have only to make these very small Amendments.
English company law does not fit very easily into Continental concepts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has rightly referred to the directive in question, It is directive 68/151 of the EEC. which he obviously has read carefully. A great deal of it is in Dutch.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is it double Dutch?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is double Dutch so far as I am concerned. There is one item dealing with the nullity of a company, which is a concept I do not understand. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will explain


the concept of nullity in this respect. Nullity to my mind smacks more of the Family Division of the High Court than the Companies Court. I hope he will explain how this fits in with the Companies Acts as we know them. We see in Article 12(2) the following:
Nullity shall entail the winding-up of a company in the same way as dissolution.
Does that refer to marriage or what? What does nullity mean in those circumstances? Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate from his experience of a different system of law will be able to help in the meaning of the word "nullity" in this provision.
I am surprised that so long a time is being taken over this Clause when time is so very short.

Mr. Michael English: We did not fix the time.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I do not think there was much co-operation on the question of time. Surely on such a modest desirable and thoroughly inoffensive matter as Clause 9 which is in the interests of the subject both here and abroad this provision should be passed without a Division.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to differ to some extent from the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I do not think this is such a simple matter as he tries to make out. Clause 9 has emerged, not as a result of any deep study of the situation by the British Government, but as a consequence of Directive 68–151 issued on 9th March, 1968. Article 9, which embodies the directive, apparently purports to abolish the ultra vires rules in relation to the countries of the Six.
Before I embark briefly upon a discussion whether it is right to abolish the rules, perhaps the Minister will answer some questions about the directive. I was under the impression—and the text books I have consulted bear this out—that there was no such thing as ultra vires in the Six. We have been told by academic and professional writers that the doctrine is peculiar to English company law. Indeed, this is one of the reasons adduced for doing away with it. I understood that there was no such thing

as ultra vires in the corporation laws of the Common Market countries long before this directive.
Are the Government sure that Article 9 purports to abolish the ultra vires rule in relation to the original Six? Surely they never had it anyway, so what is the Article about? We are owed an explanation of why, in a bunch of directives relating to freedom of establishment, and not company law, the Commission has brought forward one relating to a legal system which had nothing to do with ultra vires anyway.
Then there is the question of the translation of the directive. The translation of Article 9 refers to the "…Organs of the company…". That phrase is not familiar in English law. Professor Gower, in his book on modern company law, states that the organs of the company are the members in general meeting and the board of directors. But the phrase "organs of the company" is a loose phrase. It has no meaning to an English lawyer, whatever the word "organ" may mean to a French lawyer in French law. The Government owe us an explanation why the directive has been introduced in the first place and, secondly, whether the translation "organs of the company" has any direct and definite meaning in English law.
Does the word "directors" in Clause 9 mean merely the board of directors or does it extend further to an individual director? But assuming for the sake of the debate that the Clause does what the Explanatory Memorandum says it does—seeks to abolish the ultra vires rule which has existed for a long tune in our company law—the onus is still on the Government to show that, as a matter of considered opinion, it is commercially beneficial to the country to change our company law for this purpose.
There is nothing illogical in the ultra vires rule, whatever has been said against it. A company is governed by its constitution, which comprises its memorandum and articles. If a company acts contrary to those, it acts unlawfully. Therefore, it is logical that any act carried out against the memorandum and articles is illegal. Thus, the ultra vires doctrine at least is based on the logical proposition that a company can act only in accordance with its constitution. The change which the Government purport to make


is illogical because it seems to cloak with legality an act which itself is intrinsically illegal and unlawful.
Apart from that, I submit that the reason for the ultra vires rule is that it has sought throughout the years to protect creditors of a company. Through limited liability, the shareholders are protected. Creditors, on the other hand, are protected to some extent by the ultra vires rule. For example, if a bank lends money to a company on the basis of its accounts and profitability in a certain line of business, it knows that if that company embarks on a frolic of its own in another line of business, any other creditor in the new line of business undertaken by the company will not be on the same level in relation to the recovery of debt from the company as the bank which originally lent money to the company for the original purpose under the memorandum and articles.
The doctrine of ultra vires is not as odd or unusual as has been made out. It can be justified on the grounds of logic and also on the grounds of commerciality because it gives protection to the creditor of the company.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Surely a much more cogent point to be advanced would be the restriction of borrowing powers in the articles of a company.

Mr. Davies: I do not think that restriction on borrowing powers comes into this debate. I accept that this may in some circumstances be restrictive upon a company, but on the other hand it is a protection to the creditors of a company so that the company does not over-extend itself at the expense of its original creditors.
May I raise another point about the ultra vires rule, with which I would like the Minister to deal? There was a case involving a daily newspaper, the Daily News Limited. The case I believe was called Parke v. Daily News Limited. It was decided in that case that a company could not give its money or assets away, that it could not, in that case, perform what was a very worthy objective, I should have thought in the circumstances, and make what were in effect redundancy payments to its employees. Basing its

judgment on the ultra vires rule the court said that a company has no power to give away its assets unless the Memorandum and Articles of Association allowed it to do so.
What is the effect of this Clause upon that situation? Does it mean that the case of Parke v. Daily News Limited has been over-ruled? If a company decides to give away its assets, and provided the do nee acts in good faith, does it mean that such a transaction is treated as legal between the company and the recipient of the company's bounty?
We all know that companies like to transfer money to their subsidiaries and that they see nothing wrong in this. If a parent company transfers assets or money to a subsidiary without adequate consideration, or no consideration, this is getting close to a fraud upon its creditors. That kind of transfer is void under present law because of the ultra vires rule, because a company is not entitled to transfer its assets without any consideration for so doing. The question that is posed is: is a parent company entitled to tranfer its assets or money to a subsidiary without any consideration coming from that subsidiary? Is that kind of situation made legal as a result of Clause 9? Does the subsidiary have the right to receive the assets? This is important for the creditor of the parent company because he loses, in effect, his security in relation to those assets.
This matter is not as easy or as simple as the hon. and learned Member for Darwen tried to make out. There are good valid, commercial reasons for the ultra vires rule. As we have heard, the Cohen Committee went one way, the Jenkins Committee the other and the Law Society did not agree with the Jenkins Committee. There has been no legislation in this country seeking to change the ultra vires rule until now. The Government would have been better advised to look at this matter and analyse it in depth and then to come forward with a solution, rather than following Article 9 of the Directive.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: On that point about the effect upon the creditor of the company by a transaction between the subsidiary and the holding company, or main company, is the hon. Gentleman certain that that


transaction would come within the wording of Clause 9:
In favour of a person dealing with a company in good faith"?
Would that include the subsidiary of the company?

Mr. Davies: I accept entirely that the word "dealing" is not very clear. The draftsman has not used the word "trading" for instance. He has used a wider word and I should have thought that with a subsidiary receiving money from its parent for the purpose, possibly, of subsidiary trade or dealing with a company in good faith, it would be possible to argue that that kind of transaction would fall within the words of the subsection. My other example of the situation in Parke v. Daily News Limited is, I accept, more difficult. Certainly the words are not clear and the Minister should tell us whether this kind of transaction which in the past has been held to be ultra vires is now to be clothed with the legality which Clause 9(1) seems to confer.
I ask the Minister to explain Article 9 a little further. It is contained in the directives relating to the freedom of establishment. It does not seem to have anything to do with the reform of company law in general. It is merely a convenient directive to enable companies to trade and operate in different countries in the Common Market. One can see that it is convenient that an indigenous company, say, in this country or in France should not be bound by the rule when it was trading in, say, Belgium

or Germany because the recipient of the company's trade in that other country would find it very difficult to discover what were the objects of the company in another country. Therefore, on the basis of expediency, I can see why, in a larger grouping of the Common Market, the Commission would want to make it easier for the person in the foreign country, as it were, to trade with a company which was registered in one country and whose memorandum and articles were located in the indigenous country. From that point of view, one can see some sense in the Article.
But they have tilted the balance in favour of the person who trades with the company in the foreign country at the expense of the creditor of the indigenous country. It has been done not because of any feeling that the ultra vires rule is wrong but purely because of the exigencies of the Common Market sector and because we are involved with a number of countries without company law governing all the companies. Therefore, we are pushed into this situation to try to meet the practical difficulties.
The Government would do well to withdraw the Clause. It would not break the Common Market. As far as I can see, it is not necessary for our entry. They should analyse the problem and set up a commission, if necessary. If commercial opinion is that the ultra vires rule should go, then it should go, but not purely on the basis of a very am biguous directive issued by the Commission.

Mr. Grieve: Despite the habitual suavity, in which he always excels, of the speech with which the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) moved the Amendment, I fancy that he was not 100 per cent, behind the arguments which he adduced. To almost everybody who practises in the law the operation of the ultra vires rule vis-à-vis third parties trading with companies has appeared to be an anchronism for a long time. At one time, but not most recently, it has perpetrated a very large number of injustices.
It was common many years ago to find companies taking advantage of the ultra vires rule in their dealings with individuals, partnerships and other companies. One was familiar in defences to claims with the plea that the claim on the company must fail because that which the company had done in its transaction was ultra vires. To that extent, the rule has wrought injustice for many years. It is true that in recent years, because the rule also militated against the efficiency of companies, we have been accustomed to seeing draftsmen who were settling memoranda and articles of association making long lists of the purposes for which the company was setup, so that it was by no means unusual to find that somebody who thought he was investing in a gold mine was taking shares in a fish and chip shop. The right hon. and learned Gentleman warned himself against diverting from the thread of his argument by his interesting and amusing illustrations. But we, too, should warn ourselves against diverting ourselves from the fact that the rule is now anachronistic.

10.30 p.m.

Refering to the arguments of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) it appears tome—I think that this was the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) was making—that this subsection in no way abolishes the ultra vires rule. What it does is to modify it in respect of the transactions between companies and third parties, be they individuals, partnerships or other companies. To that extent, I should have thought that it was an absolutely unexceptionable reform.

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) reminded the Committee, it is one which a few months ago met with the approval of the Cohen Committee and with qualified approval from the Jenkins Committee. It is one which it is almost certain we should have seen in any future company reform brought before the House of Commons. If it would have been right to have it in a Bill reforming company law in 1973 or 1974, I cannot see why it is wrong to have it in this Bill, which brings about the modifications in English law and Scottish law which are necessary for our adherence to the European Economic Community.

If we reject the subsection we shall also be rejecting the opportunity of bringing about a reform which for long, by many practitioners in the law, has been considered eminently desirable. I cannot see the force of the arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, who suggests that this is piecemeal legislation. It is not piecemeal so far as this Bill is concerned. This is a necessary part of the legal fabric of our adhesion to the Community. At the same time, it anticipates a change in the law which for many years has been considered eminently desirable.

During the argument of the hon. Member for Llanelly, I was astonished to hear him speaking from the Opposition benches extolling the virtues of the ultra vires rule as a rule which had existed for a long time. That, I thought, was a consideration which very rarely appealed in itself as a sole reason for maintaining any part of our law to those who sit on the Opposition benches.

We are here very much killing two birds with one stone. We are doing that which is necessary to secure our adhesion to the Community. We are also bringing about a desirable reform. I hope very much that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies), with their usual cogency, have deployed very strong arguments to show that the subsection as drafted is riddled with uncertainties. Particular reference has been made to the


uncertainty which enshrouds the position of directors. It is not clearly stated in the subsection that it refers only to directors acting in such capacity. In order to remove every trace of doubt, it would be to the advantage of the subsection, in the opinion of everyone in the Committee, that the words "acting in such capacity" should be added immediately following the word "directors" wherever it appears in the subsection.
We look forward with interest and enthusiasm to the opportunity which the Minister will have for saying that he would have no objection to a manuscript Amendment on those lines being submitted, for it is a simple and mechanical matter and there is no earthly reason why it should be rejected.
I shall with very great deference disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend about the necessity of the ultra vires rule. There are two reasons why the rule should be maintained as a central part of our law relating to corporations. It goes to the very root of the existence of a corporation. The essence of a corporation is that it is a pygmalion, it is an artificial creation. It is an absurdity in law. Although by every logic it is absurd, it is not a natural personality, it is acknowledged by the law within certain limits and these are set out in its memorandum and articles.
It is on that basis that the law has been willing to recognise the limited liability company. In the earliest stage the law construed these rights very strictly because it regarded the limited liability company as being very much on the same basis as the public body. That was in an age when public bodies such as railways and canal companies were encroaching on the liberties of the individual and it was necessary to define their powers within the strictest limits.
The next stage was that the courts took a rather more benign attitude towards private corporate bodies and were willing to acknowledge that they had the power to do anything except and in so far as there was a specific prohibition to the contrary in their articles and memorandum. It is only in the third stage, which has lasted for about 100 years, that we have had the ultra vires rule in its present form. I refer to the judgement of Lord

Cairns in what is a leading case, Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. v. Riche in 1875. It is contained in Law Reports, 7 House of Lords 653.
After referring to the requirement of the Act—in that case the Companies Act 1862—that the company's object should be stated in its memorandum, he added:
if that is the condition on which the corporation is established—if that is the purpose for which the corporation is established—it is a mode of incorporation which contains in it both that which is affirmative and that which is negative. It states affirmatively the ambit and extent of vitality and power which by law are given to the corporation, and it states, if it is necessary so to state, negatively, that nothing shall be done beyond that ambit, and that no attempt shall be made to use the corporate life for any other purpose than that which is so specified.
I do not think anyone could put it in a way which is comparable with that because that is a description of the essence of a corporate entity and if once it is said that these main timbers, these walls, these boundaries no longer count for anything at all, then clearly the whole rationale and structure of the corporate being has been completely destroyed.
The second reason is that whenever persons become members of a company they join that company on the basis of certain well-defined rules which exist at the time of their joining. Those limitations and those powers are clearly set out in the memorandum and articles.
Referring in the same case to what was virtually a social contract, which created this community of interest between the member and the company, Lord Cairns said:
The covenant, therefore, is not merely that every member will observe the conditions on which the company is established, but that no change shall be made in those conditions; and if there is a covenant that no change shall be made in the objects for which the company is established I apprehend that that includes within it the engagement that no object shall be pursued by the company, or attempted to be attained by the company in practice, except an object which is mentioned in the memorandum of association.
Therefore, the destruction of the ultra vires principle means that there is destroyed by the same act, and at the same time, that implied contract which exists between the member of every company and that corporate body.
There has been reference to the Cohen Report, but I do not think the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) can have been very valid. The Cohen Committee reported in or about 1945. In 1947 we had the most massive and comprehensive codification of the company law we have ever had, and therefore it must be clearly accepted that Parliament specifically rejected that recommendation of the Cohen Committee in the Act which came into force on 1st January, 1948.

Mr. Grieve: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the Committee that a proposal to abolish or modify the ultra vires rule was in the Bill and was rejected by the House, or simply that it never arose for the consideration of the House?

Mr. Morgan: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman knows far better than I that the basis of that legislation was the Cohen Report. It was the fons et origo of the whole legislation. Most of the report is incorporated in the Act. Clearly Parliament applied its mind to this most specific recommendation and rejected it. Therefore, I do not think any argument can be based upon that recommendation of the Cohen Committee.
Reference has already been made to good faith. As my right right hon. and learned Friend has said, this would cover most cases where there had not been a deliberate act on the part of the third party, but it would not of necessity cover every passive case. For example, it would not cover a case of wilful blindness. But the question posed was what would happen if there were gross negligence on the part of the third party.
I give this example. What would happen where it could be shown that in the ordinary course of commercial matters the party concerned would have examined very closely the memorandum and articles, as has happened over the past 100 years, and in the case in question the man involved had failed to do so. Does such gross negligence mean that the third party concerned cannot be regarded by law as acting in good faith?
We have assumed up to now, it seems, that the directors referred to in the subsection are human personalities, but is that of necessity correct? Is it not pos-

sible that a company in itself would be a director? What effect would that have upon the operation of the subsection?

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

10.45 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I know that there are some debates which are considered to be specially reserved for members of the legal profession. This would appear to be one of them. However, just as there is, I think, an assumption in law that any Indian immigrant who enters these shores with a valid passport is in full possession of the entire contents of the Statute Book, so also there is an assumption here that those hon. Members who find themselves engaged in Committee on the Finance Bill become ipso facto, merely by their election to this place, tax lawyers of the highest degree.
I do not want to keep the Committee long, but I have a theory that an ounce of practice may be worth a pound of precept. We have had rather a dose of precept tonight. I want to say a little about what my own practice has taught me. For more years than I can remember I have been engaged in a banking business. I suppose that the sport of taking money from bankers is one that is highly prized by the citizens of Britain and they indulge in it freely. To my knowledge, the fact that action by a director of a company was ultra vires has never been used by his colleagues or by the company as a reason for their not paying their bills.
I suspect that the ultra vires argument does not go quite as far as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) has argued, because I also know, on the issue of ultra vires, that my daughter, when she reached the mature age of 21, became a director of a music publishing company of modest scope which included in its articles of association authority to build a canal. This suggested to me that there is no great protection to the public in recourse to memoranda and articles of association.
Having listened to the debate, I believe that overmuch weight has been put on the opinion of members of the judiciary, no doubt of the highest learning, who sometimes seem to have


delivered these opinions more than 100 years ago. The sooner we transfer ourselves to the latter end of the twentieth century rather than staying in the middle of the nineteenth century the more likely we are to come to a proper conclusion on these matters.

Mr. John: Apart from the interesting but slightly irrelevant contribution by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid)—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Those who are now shouting loudest might care to reflect that it is precisely lawyers who will have to interpret the Clause, not the hon. Member for Walsall, South with his breezy good humour. If we find it difficult as lawyers, this is merely anticipating difficulties which the courts will find. We as legislators are supposed to make the task of the courts more easy rather than more difficult.
Apart from that, the main argument adduced by the two hon. and learned Gentlemen who spoke previously was the Irishman's defence to assault—"I did not, and what if I did?" What they are saying is "We are not abolishing the doctrine of ultra vires, but even if we are it is a very worthwhile measure, any way". They should be clear as to whether they are abolishing the doctrine or are not.
The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said that we are not abolishing the doctrine. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, because there are at least two elements in the doctrine of ultra vires. The first is a company acting ultra vires in the sense that it acts against its memorandum and articles of association. The other is acting ultra vires in that the company contravenes the Companies Act by so acting.
As I understand the Clause, it still permits of an action for ultra vires if what the company does is against the Companies Act or is in contravention of a proposal of the Companies Act. I am not entirely clear whether that is so and whether, if it is so, it is carrying into effect what are our obligations under Article 9 of EEC Directive No. 68/151. Article 9(1) states:
Acts done by the organs of the company shall be binding upon it even if those acts are not within the objects of the company, unless such acts exceed the powers that the law confers or allows to be conferred on those organs.

However, Member States may provide that the company shall not be bound where such acts are outside the objects of the company if it proves that the third party knew…".
I take it that that is intended to be provided for in Clause 9(1) by a specific reference to the memorandum or articles, otherwise it would have to be put more at large. Therefore, I presume that a Statute outside the Companies Act in Britain still remains ultra vires the company. But, if that is so, we then look at Clause 9(2), and I think that the Minister must be called upon to explain this, because what it says is that the limits on the powers of the company arising under the Statutes or under a decision by the competent bodies may never be relied upon as against third parties even if they have been disclosed.
So what we are saying is that according to this directive our law should be that even if it is disclosed to the third party that the company is acting outside the scope of its articles and memorandum, that should never be relied on by the company against the third party. But that is not what subsection (1) says in its present form. So we have either got it completely wrong in subsection (2), or subsection (1) is not fulfilling the whole of the requirements needed to bring our law into line with the Community law, or it is saying what it is a saying by reference to the Statutes. I do not know whether it says statutes of the company or articles or memorandum of the company or Acts of Parliament, but in any case it is going beyond what Clause 9(1) now lays down.
The Minister must clear up not just subsection (1) but subsection (2), which is a much more difficult and loosely phrased subsection. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), I am not so sure that we can be asserting that the doctrine of ultra vires is as evil as it was made out to be. Certainly, the Cohen Report was unequivocal, but the Jenkins Report of 1962 was by no means so unequivocal, and, as I shall show by some quotations from the Jenkins Report a little later, it came down in many examples as thinking that a profound change in the ultra vires rule would be undesirable for the English law.
At the risk of rousing the ire of the hon. Member for Walsall, South I will quote a case which he will be happy to


know was in this century, and which illustrates the point about the ultra vires rule. It is the case of Cotman v. Brougham, where it is stated:
The truth is that the statement of a company's objects in its Memorandum is to serve a double purpose. In the first place it gives protection to subscribers who learn from it the purposes for which their money can be applied. Secondly, it gives protection to persons who deal with the company and who can infer from it the extent of the company's powers.
Subsection (1) certainly seeks to protect the third party but it does not, it seems to me, give protection to the shareholder himself. I mention that because there is, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will know, a widening gap between the directors and management of a company and the shareholding.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: This subsection has been much disputed, but one thing it does not do is to alter the contract between the shareholder and the company, and it only affects third parties dealing with the company. I think that that is crystal clear.

Mr. John: This is what I am now presuming to argue, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will let me develop my argument further he will find that it has precisely the same effect, although it is a distinction without a difference.
I argue not that there is too much control in the hands of management—that position is probably irredeemable in current society—but that information is never available to shareholders in the modern company. But it seems to me that if the Clause does anything, it widens that gap and makes it less likely that the necessary knowledge will be available to the shareholder.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the question of not affecting the position between the company and its shareholder; but the shareholder will be bound by the act of the directors. That is the whole position. He will be dragged along at the coat tails of the director or directors, and we are not sure whether they are individuals or just parts. The shareholder will be dragged along at the coat tails, and his relationship within the company is affected precisely by the Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in making this distinction, is making a distinction without a difference.
It elevates the power of the directors and elevates the likelihood of secrecy to a higher level than appears in the Companies Act and in company practice.
I come back to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend about the position and personality of the company, but I make a different point. Because a company is an artificial personality, it gets advantages as was found in Saloman v. Saloman, where 95 per cent. of the shares were owned by one man and the company was found to be a different person from that one man. It gets a different advantage, and that advantage is its liability.
By Clause 9(1), which we are seeking to delete, the company also gets the advantage of individual personality, certainly for its directors, who can now do anything vis-à-vis a third party unless he acts in bad faith—and he is not, incidentally, bound to inquire of the company whether it is acting within its own capacity. If it does that, the company is provided with the advantage of an individual personality so that one has the company getting the advantage, on the one hand, of being an artificial personality and, on the other, of being an individual personality, but getting the disadvantage of neither. That is an unhealthy state of affairs where advantage is conferred in both ways without any disadvantage.
If the individual personality is conferred on a company, we should have some modification of the doctrine of limited liability and the ability to pursue, in certain companies, the directors and their liability into their personal fortunes. But this is not touched in this Clause.
The hon. and learned Member for Solihull asked: Why was there a worry? What was surprising about amending the whole of English company law in one Clause of the European Communities Bill? It is no more unnatural than amending the whole law of divorce in a Factories Act. But this is not a limited measure, but one which covers the doctrine of ultra vires within the totality of the company law of Britain. That is why it is so ill-advised and ill-judged that I cannot help feeling it is another example of the Solicitor-General and those who advise him having their cleverness getting the better of open and frank discussion and amendment of company law.
This is an opportunity to slip into the Bill, for fear it will give us too many loopholes, a measure which should have been produced as a separate Statute. This is a recasting of the whole company law.
In conclusion, I would refer to the Jenkins Committee and the consideration which it gave to the doctrine of ultra vires, since this has been under attack by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have seemed to castigate that very high-powered Committee—

It being Eleven o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to the Order of 2nd May.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE (SUB JUDICE RULE)

Ordered,
That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure be now considered.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

11.1 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move,
That—
(1) notwithstanding the Resolution of 23rd July 1963 and subject to the discretion of the Chair reference may be made in Questions, Motions or debate to matters awaiting or under adjudication in all civil courts, including the National Industrial Relations Court, insofar as such matters relate to a Ministerial decision which cannot be challenged in court except on grounds of misdirection or bad faith, or concern issues of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life;
(2) in exercising its discretion the Chair should not allow reference to such matters if it appears that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings; and should have regard to the considerations set out in Paragraphs 25 to 28 of the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure.
The first words I would like to utter to the few hon. Members who may not already be aware of the fact are that I am not a lawyer myself, and, therefore, I embark on talking about these matters with a certain amount of trepidation, and with great comfort and pleasure in knowing that my right hon. and learned Friend

will be available to wind up the debate and deal with legal matters which are altogether beyond my knowledge and understanding.
As the House has immediately recognised, the Procedure Committee's Report to which this Motion relates concerns matters of very substantial constitutional importance. It concerns, really, the balance between two general principles. The first principle is that, unless there are strong overriding reasons, Parliament should never be inhibited from discussing matters of national importance—in the words quoted in the report:
The fundamental responsibility of Parliament to be the supreme inquest of the nation with the overall responsibility to discuss anything it likes.
That is the first principle.
On the other hand, the second principle of major constitutional importance is the need to ensure that the proceedings in our courts, and the integrity of the judicial process, are not prejudiced by comment or debate in Parliament. The sub judice rule, or "convention'" as the Procedure Committee would prefer to call it, represents the desire of Parliament, imposed, as it were, voluntarily upon itself, to set a balance between these two principles, which can, of course, in particular circumstances, conflict with each other.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am wondering whether my right hon. Friend will tell us why this particular time should be the time when we discuss these very profound things, and whether he can show that the application of the Resolution of 23rd July, 1963, which has been in operation since then, has cut across the profound principles which he says he wants to protect.

Mr. Carr: I hope I shall do so. Whether I shall satisfy my hon. Friend by my manner of doing so, I am not sure. We shall have to see. But I will certainly try to do so.
The first thing I must say to my hon. Friend is—and this is one of the difficulties—that the point at which this balance should rest must inevitably be, in the last analysis, a matter of subjective judgment and not objective judgment. It is essentially a matter of subjective judgment, but it seems undeniable, at least to me, and, I think, to the Committee—I


think the Committee made this clear-that from time to time we need to re-examine the position in the light of changing circumstances.
As the House will be aware, the present position is governed by the Resolution of 23rd July, 1963. This provides that matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court of law—criminal courts, courts martial, civil courts and tribunals under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921—should not, subject to the discretion of the Chair and the right of the House to legislate, be referred to in any Motion or debate, or by any Question to a Minister if it might prejudice a case under trial. That Resolution further specifies at what stages the convention should apply in different kinds of proceedings.
Your Procedure Committee, following a suggestion made to it in the House on 20th April, and welcomed by Mr. Speaker, has reviewed this Resolution and its effects in the light of the extent to which changes and developments since 1963 have altered the circumstances in which the convention has to be applied in the House.
In particular, the Committee has had regard to the increasing extent—and I believe this is the real answer to my hon. Friend—to which restrictions on debate in Parliament on matters of national importance have been thrown into relief by the increasingly rapid coverage by Press, radio and television, and by the increasing involvement of Ministers as parties to court proceedings on matters in the financial, economic and planning fields, and especially in the last two or three months in relation to proceedings before the Industrial Relations Court.
Not only in relation to the Industrial Relations Court but also in relation to the other subjects which I have mentioned, over the last decade there has been an increase in the involvement of Ministers, and also an increase in the activity of the media, which have thrown these matters into relief and have sometimes appeared to create the impression that the media are free to discuss matters in general terms to a greater extent than are the House of Commons and Parliament. I have never believed it right that Parliament should be more inhibited in

these matters than other media. This is an important principle, difficult though it may be to get it rightly defined and rightly applied with an ideal balance at any particular time.
I am sure the House would wish me to express its appreciation of the speed and thoroughness with which the Procedure Committee has dealt with these complex matters.
The Procedure Committee, in short, has concluded, in the light of its consideration, that the present balance in certain respects is over-weighted against discussion in this House, and that changes in the application of the 1963 Resolution are called for. It therefore proposes that in certain areas the existing sub judice convention could, with safety and subject to the discretion of the Chair, be relaxed in the interests of providing enlarged opportunity for the debate of issues here in which, despite the fact that they are before the courts, the overriding consideration should be the need of an opportunity for their ventilation in Parliament.
To interpose an observation of my own in recent weeks and months—which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and others who think as he does will take into account—under the application of our present rule, and in spite of your own sensitive care and responsibility in these matters, Mr. Speaker, it is possible through the raising, for example, of a point of order—and I make no criticism of this—to say words which impinge on matters of moment, but the application of the rule prevents the expression of any opposite view or any response to the points that may be raised.
It has been very much in my observation in recent weeks and months that, on a number of occasions, the application of the rule, as it stands at the moment, or the convention, as the Committee would have us call it, has acted contrary to the real purpose of the convention; and that it is better, if these things can be mentioned at all, that wherever possible they should be debate able and not merely be the subject of any comment which may be made before it can be judged and ruled upon by you, Mr. Speaker, and which if ruled upon unfavourably cannot be replied to. That is


a matter which I have had much in mind in my observation of what has been happening over the last month or two.
The Committee's principal recommendations, summarised in paragraph 33 of its report, are that, whilst there should be no change in the sub judice convention regarding the matters before the criminal courts, matters awaiting decision in any civil courts, except in the case of defamation proceedings, might in future be referred to in the House, unless the Chair considers that
…there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings".
The report, having enunciated that general principle, deals specifically with the application of such a change as it might affect cases being considered by the Industrial Relations Court, which are the cases which have given rise particularly to the examination of the convention.
Broadly, the Committee recommends that the sub judice rule should normally be relaxed, at the discretion of the Chair—that factor must be emphasised—in relation to the discussion of ministerial views expressed to the Industrial Relations Court, insofar as these cannot be challenged in the court except on grounds of misdirection or bad faith, and with regard to the discussion by the House of the general background of any ministerial application to the court.
The Committee considers, however, that a sub judice convention is still needed, again at the Chair's discretion, in the case of more precise issues before the court—for example, in relation to the recent industrial relations cases, the specification of the areas of employment and persons that may be affected by an order under subsection (2) of Sections 139 and 142 of the Act.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The Minister will recollect the Heatons and Craddocks judgment which went to Lord Denning. I understand that, since Lord Denning reached a conclusion, the matter has been referred to the House of Lords. Will the Minister give us some information whether on Monday we may discuss this matter in the House, or is it sub judice, having been referred to the House of Lords? Can we get down to the detail of the whole of the case affecting the dockers?

Mr. Carr: I make two comments on the intervention of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). First, it seems to me as a layman that the particular case to which he referred is a contempt rather than a sub judice case, although I recognise that the two are related. If I am wrong about that, my right hon. and learned Friend will no doubt put me right later. The main and far more important point is that, under the recommendations of the Committee, every case must be subject to the ruling or discretion of the Chair. We should all recognise that this is inevitable. Indeed, it is inevitable under our present Resolution. It puts a very heavy responsibility on Mr. Speaker, but I think that it is inevitable, and I do not think, therefore, that it is possible for me or for any Member to answer specifically the question which the hon. Gentleman put.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of view, but he is now Leader of the House and no longer Secretary of State for Employment. Has he not, therefore, an opinion whether on Monday we shall be able to discuss in great detail the reference which has been made to the House of Lords on Lord Denning's judgment?

Mr. Carr: I may be Leader of the House and no longer Secretary of State for Employment but I am not Mr. Speaker, and that is the essential difference.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Give yourself time.

Mr. Carr: A great deal of time will have to elapse before I have any desire to accept your onerous but essential responsibilities, Mr. Speaker. My feeling in this matter—and I hope that I am not out of order in expressing my feeling, because it can be no more than a feeling—is that we would be able on Monday to discuss the sort of matter which the hon. Member for Tottenham raised. But it must be for Mr. Speaker to rule. The fact that I have expressed that view as a layman cannot in any way bind the House or be taken as an interpretation on the matter concerned, and the decision must be a matter for Mr. Speaker, as it is at the moment. There we shall have to leave the matter for the moment. My own feeling is that probably we would have been able


to discuss it under the old convention, but that, again, is only a personal feeling.
As I promised the House when it came out on 15th June, the Government have given this important report urgent and detailed consideration. I am grateful to the Opposition for their ready agreement to the arrangements for this early debate, because it is important that we should have it early, not only because the Opposition have a strong desire to debate these matters soon but because once a thing like this is seriously in doubt it is a matter of urgency that the House should declare itself and put it as far as possible beyond doubt.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): From what the right hon. Gentleman has just said it appears that he is putting a tremendous responsibility on the shoulders of Mr. Speaker. Should not the House have some responsibility without having to bear so heavily on Mr. Speaker's ruling?

Mr. Carr: There has always been a heavy responsibility on Mr. Speaker in this matter as in others. Certainly it is very great in this matter. What the House attempted to do by the 1963 Resolution was to give, as far as it is possible for the House to give, in general terms—because it is impossible in general terms to be precise about any rule which could apply to every case that might arise in future—its guidance to Mr. Speaker, who is its servant, on what we wish in these matters. But we have always recognised that the ultimate responsibility of discretion had to rest with him. What we are doing now is considering giving him up-dated guidelines while still leaving him with the burden of responsibility to use his discretion in each individual case. It is a heavy burden but I do not see how it can be avoided.
The Government accept the Committee's view that a relaxation of the existing sub judice convention is now called for in the light of developments since 1963. The Government would propose, therefore, that, subject to the overriding discretion of the Chair, and provided in particular that the Chair is satisfied that no
real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings
would arise, matters before any civil court, including the NIRC, may in future

be referred to by Motion, debate or Question in so far as such matters relate to a ministerial decision which cannot be challenged in the court itself, except on grounds of misdirection or bad faith, or in so far as they concern issues of national importance forming the background to a ministerial application to a court.
The effect of this in relation to matters before the Industrial Relations Court would be that there would in future generally be no bar, subject—I must say it again—to the discretion of the Chair, to Motions, Questions or debate regarding "unassailable" ministerial views expressed to the Court under paragraphs l(a) and (c) of Sections 138and 141 of the Industrial Relations Act; or in regard to the discussion of issues relating to the national economy, national security, public disorder, dangers to persons or livelihoods under Subsection (2) of Sections 138 and 141 of the Act.
With regard, however, to issues under subsection (2) of Sections 139 and 142 of the Act, which concern such matters as the specification of the areas of employment to be covered, and persons to be bound by "cooling off" orders; or the length of the "cooling off" period; or the question on which a ballot is to be taken, the position would be that the Chair would have general regard, as recommended by the Committee, to the impropriety of Questions, Motions or debate on the precise details which the Court must specify in any such orders.
The Government would also propose the acceptance of the Committee's recommendations that Mr. Speaker should not be required to give reasons for exercising his discretion regarding the exclusion from discussion of sub judice matters. The Government also agree that the Secretary of State for Employment should as soon as practicable place in the Library of the House a copy of any application which he makes under the Industrial Relations Act.
As regards the Committee's more general recommendation, however, that all aspects of matters awaiting or under adjudication in civil courts, except defamation cases, should be debatable unless the Chair considers that there is
a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings",


the Government believe, while certainly not turning down this recommendation, that it would be premature to go ahead with this general relaxation without more time for consideration.
There does not seem to us to be any urgent need for change regarding these wider aspects of civil proceedings as there does in the cases covered in our Motion. Moreover, we have the Phillimore Committee considering the law of contempt as a whole. The subject of its inquiry is, of course, very relevant to the application of the sub judice convention in this House, in that both are concerned with the potential dangers to the integrity of court proceedings from public debate and comment.

Mr. Michael English: I think that I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Although not going as far as the report proposes, he has gone further than dealing merely with the industrial relations point with which my hon. Friends and I are so keen that he should deal. He has introduced what I can only describe as a somewhat vague phrase in the Motion, namely that we can discuss things which concern "the essentials of life."
This is no term of art of which I have ever heard. It seems an extremely vague boundary line to draw, whereas the report was so clear. Will he comment on what he thinks, in this context, are the essentials of life?

Mr. Carr: My right hon. and learned Friend will be able to deal with this better than I. My understanding is that this phrase is in the 1920 Act under which we take our emergency powers. It is not an easy phrase to interpret and it is difficult to find phrases which are easy. All I can say is that we thought it better to use that phrase which, with all its apparent vagueness, is one to which the House has become accustomed over 50 years, rather than to embark on some totally different line. We have to accept that such phrases are not easy to interpret.
The broad recommendation of the Committee regarding civil actions in general other than defamation cases is one which the Government have not decided to reject ultimately, but we do not believe it needs to be decided at the moment with the urgency of the other

matters to which I have referred. We believe that it would be wise to postpone a decision until we are able to consider it in the light of what the Phillimore Committee says.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I can well understand that there is a need for consideration of that part of this matter which is not urgent. What I do not follow is the relevance of the Phillimore Committee. That Committee is concerned with the question of contempt of court. It is not concerned with the question of the public interest in matters being discussed in the House which the right hon. Gentleman surely will agree must, in many cases, override questions of individual prejudice. What help shall we get from the Phillimore Committee? Shall we place evidence before it as to the position in Parliament so that it can guide us?

Mr. Carr: However lame a reply it may sound, I must ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to deal with that point because, as I said, not being a lawyer, I find these matters difficult. For me the relation between them is difficult to define.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It does not need a lawyer to realise that, as the Phillimore Committee is considering the question of contempt in detail, it will be wiser for Parliament to have before it the views of that Committee on the general question before tackling the specific question affecting Parliament. For Parliament to look after itself before the Phillimore Committee has reported is putting the cart before the horse, which is a very dangerous thing to do.

Mr. Carr: That is a view which is sincerely held not only by my hon. Friend but by other Members. The unanimous view of the Select Committee and the view of the Government is that, because of the developments over the last 10 years about which I have spoken, there is a need to change the balance laid down in the 1963 Resolution. This must be a matter of subjective opinion. I come to one opinion about it, as did the Procedure Committee unanimously, and my hon. Friend and other hon. Members come to a different opinion. There is no scientific instrument with which we can measure which of us is right and which of us is


wrong. That will have to be judged by experience.
But it is immensely important that Parliament should not be unduly restricted in discussing matters of overall national importance and matters for which Ministers have taken responsibility in their decisions and which should, therefore, unless there are exceptional reasons against it, be debated in the House. I repeat that it is immensely important that we should not get into a position in which we are more inhibited than outside media. That would not be for the health of our parliamentary system or of our democratic system as a whole. I do not believe that we are giving ourselves advantages over other people or in front of other people. We are putting ourselves in a reasonable situation in the matters covered by this Resolution. But in the end the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
The House will recognise that the proposals put a very considerable extra burden on Mr. Speaker—in particular, in exercising his discretion in this matter. Whilst reluctant to impose this further burden, I am sure that the House would do so with total confidence in the judgment of the Chair.
If accepted by the House the Motion will enlarge the opportunities for parliamentary debate without, we believe, risking the basic security and integrity of court proceedings which is essential for the protection of our society, based as it is on the principle of freedom under the law. That is what the Motion intends to do. I think that it is clearly the desire of the House that it should be so. We believe that this will achieve it, and I commend the Motion to the House accordingly.

11.30 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Select Committee on Procedure on the speed and care with which it produced its Report. As one who was summoned before it, I know that it hustled us along pretty quickly. We congratulate the Committee on what it has done.
The basic principle relating to proceedings in Parliament—and in that expression I include debate, Questions and answers, Motions and Reports—is still that which is contained in such splendid

and clear clarion terms in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688,
That the freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
That should be emphasised, because it is at the heart of the issue of what Parliament can discuss and what it should discuss. Parliament's right to discuss matters of public importance and to say what it likes about them is paramount, irrespective of any prejudicial effect which may result outside Parliament. That right of Parliament must be jealously guarded by us, its trustees, its Members. It is essential that Parliament should not even appear to give the impression that it accepts limits upon itself other than those which it imposes upon itself and which it can itself remove or modify at any time to suit the requirements of a particular case.
It follows, therefore, from these propositions—which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has challenged—first, that the Select Committee was right in emphasising that the so-called sub judice rule is not really a rule but a convention and, secondly, that if at any time Parliament finds that the terms in which the so-called convention is framed inhibit Parliament in its duty to debate and question executive action, Parliament has the right and—I submit—the duty to modify it to remove the inhibition, irrespective of its prejudicial effect outside Parliament.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that the Resolution of 23rd July, 1963, was a convention? It was a Resolution of this House, passed formally.

Sir Elwyn Jones: It was not a rule; it was not a law, needing an Act of Parliament to change it. It was a convention. That is putting it as high as it should be put.
I was submitting that the Select Committee was right in the assessment of the standing of the 1963 Resolution, and I have submitted that when it becomes necessary for Parliament, in the face of changing executive action, to alter any previous apparent restriction which Parliament imposed upon itself, it is right that Parliament should review the position.
The importance of emphasising the paramountcy of Parliament's rights and duties is illustrated by the extract from a judgment of Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, quoted in paragraph 2 on page V of the report. The House will have noticed that the Select Committee criticised his dictum after quoting it. The words are:
The Master of the Rolls said that—
'…If Parliament gave great powers to a minister the courts must allow them to him; but at the same time they would be diligent to see that he exercised them in accordance with the law. That was especially the case where, as here, there was no immediate control by Parliament because the minister applied to court quickly before Parliament would have heard of his intention….' 
Then there follows the words:
and pending the court's decision the matter was sub judice so that his action could not be discussed, and only after action had been taken could the matter be raised in Parliament.
With great respect, I submit that it is essential that a dictum in the courts should not convey the impression that it is for the courts and not for Parliament to decide or even to suggest the proper limits of debate in Parliament. I am quite sure that so meticulous a constitutionalist as Lord Denning was not suggesting anything to the contrary and was no doubt stating what he believed—I think on this occasion not accurately—Parliament itself to have decided.
It follows that, despite any Resolution of the House such as that of 1963, Parliament at all times ought to be ready to review the self-imposed limitations that are provided by Resolutions of that kind in the light of current events.
The importance of the Industrial Relations Act is that it has highlighted a problem which has grown in the period since the 1963 Resolution, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House pointed out. That Resolution was intended, quite properly, to restrict the boundaries of parliamentary debate so as to avoid unnecessary potential prejudice to those involved in litigation. Its careful distinctions between civil and criminal causes and between judicial and non-judicial bodies indicate that Parliament was concerned with the possibility of prejudice to the parties and not with the so-called alternative forum principle which—and I agree with the Select Committee in this respect—was misconceived

and confusing. The parliamentary function and the judicial function are quite different and separate.
The 1963 Resolution recognised the paramountcy of Parliament's right to debate, irrespective of prejudice, by expressing the discretion of you, Mr. Speaker, to depart from the rules contained in it.
It was a piece of private litigation which gave rise to the 1963 Resolution and the House was, therefore, not directly seized of the problems which could arise where the executive, or a Minister, is a litigant, particularly where the issue raises important questions of Government policy in addition to the justiciable issues which the court is trying. In such cases it is, of course, not the task of Parliament to try the justiciable issues. But equally, it is the duty of Parliament to debate the issues of policy. If the issues overlap, it is right that Parliament should seek to avoid unnecessary potential prejudice, but it is paramount that Parliament should debate the issues of policy unfettered by self-imposed restrictions, restrictions which are designed to avoid prejudice to litigants but which could result in prejudice to free parliamentary debate.
Perhaps the best illustration of this point was given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) when he gave evidence that Parliament must not be inhibited from debating the decision, for instance, on the third London airport merely because someone brings an action before the court arising from that decision on a justiciable point.
Although the ruling of Mr. Speaker King in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board case in 1970 was in the nature of a compromise, it illustrated a growing need for Parliament to distinguish between issues where the executive found themselves, and find themselves, before the courts and those where litigation lay between private citizens and where accordingly in only a tiny majority of cases would any immediate issue of public policy require debate.
The Industrial Relations Act has highlighted the distinction for two reasons. First, because Government policy is directly involved in many cases which come before the National Industrial Relations Court, particularly, but not as


we have seen in the case of the three dockers, exclusively, under Part VIII of the Act. As counsel said in discussion of this matter in court, the Government have put a hammer into the hands of the Industrial Relations Court and if the hammer descends it is the muscle of the Government which moves it.
Secondly, because the specific wording of Part VIII is such that it reverses what would normally be the division of function between court and Parliament. The result is that the court is required to decide issues which are essentially matters of ministerial judgment for which Ministers obviously must be responsible to Parliament, whereas the Act undoubtedly withdraws from the court issues which would normally be naturally regarded as justiciable. It is a remarkable piece of legislation. What is political is to be determined by the judge and what is judicial is left to the say-so of the Minister.
In application of the Industrial Relations Act any prejudice to the individual arising from Parliamentary debate is likely to be minimal. Parliament should not be astute to discover the possibility of prejudice in matters where the court is considering questions of policy in the absence of a jury. In any event the paramount principle overriding and overruling potential prejudice must be the public interest in unfettered parliamentary debate.
The words which are quoted in paragraph 27 on page 13 from the joint memorandum by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich and myself are expressive of the vital point at issue and I hope I shall be forgiven if I quote it.
It would be an intolerable restriction…if the discretion of the Chair were invoked in such a way as to prevent the House from questioning or debating the decison of the Secretary of State to have recourse to the court on the grounds of a threat to national security, the national economy or public order. These are the very matters upon which a Minister ought to be answerable in Parliament.
I understand that the Select Committee itself approved of that point of view. However, in paragraph 28 of the report the Committee suggest some restrictions on the exercise of Mr. Speaker's discretion even on these matters and I notice that the Secretary of State and the Government adopt these restrictions. In our

view we think that paragraph 28 is too cautiously worded and the restrictions are too widely drawn. In our view Mr. Speaker should allow discussion on the matters referred to in paragraph 28 unless it is shown to him that any resulting prejudice would outweigh the public interest in discussing them.
The report of the Committee states the view on civil cases, other than those in the NIRC, in paragraphs 23 to 25. The Opposition do not wholly agree with those paragraphs and as we read them the Committee distinguishes between three classes of case, those in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 respectively. We believe that paragraph 24 is too restrictive. Even if there is a
 "real and substantial danger of prejudice
of the cause, it is still possible, even in cases to which the Minister is not a party, that there will be overriding public interest under discussion. Examples are an aircraft accident or a railway accident which could raise issues of great importance relating to public safety. If so, debate in Parliament should, in the discretion of the Chair, be allowed.
We believe that paragraph 25 is too restrictive in referring only to cases where a Minister has made application to the court. It should also apply to cases where the Minister or Department cannot be a party to a case in court so long as important policy questions arise. The cardinal test in both cases should be the importance of the issues of policy. The fact that a Minister is a party merely makes it more likely that an issue of policy will arise.
I refer briefly to the terms of the Government Motion. Paragraph 1, in its enlargement of the freedom of debate in the House over what seemed to be contemplated in 1963, we, of course, welcome. But paragraph 2 contains restrictions which we think go much too far. It seems to be subordinating issues of national importance which are set out in paragraph 1 of the Motion to the question of
real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings".
In our view, the second part of the Motion fails, for some reason which is not clear to me, to implement the recommendations which are embodied in


the first part and which are referred to expressly in recommendations (3) and (4) of the Select Committee. We do not find this acceptable.
If the issue of national importance is sufficiently important, debate should be allowed notwithstanding
a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings".
Furthermore, in accepting the guidelines in paragraphs 25–28, the Government are accepting that part of paragraph 28 which we regard as too cautious in its wording, although they would also appear to be accepting the statement which I read out from our joint memorandum, which is set out in paragraph 27 of the report.
On a matter where it would have been happy if we could have reached agreement, I regret to say that we do not find the Motion, and particularly the second part of it, acceptable. We would prefer some such wording as "(2) in exercising its discretion the Chair shall have regard to the national importance of the issues involved and to the risk, if any, of prejudice to the proceedings, but the public interest in the right of Parliament to discuss matters of national importance shall be treated as paramount". A Motion on those lines we think would be wholly acceptable.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: In paragraph 9 of his own written evidence on page 18 of the Select Committee Report occurs the original of the passage the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted just now, which recurs in paragraph 27 of the report. That is the right hon. Gentleman's own statement and that of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). It says:
We think that it would be an intolerable restriction upon the House's right to challenge the exercise of power by the executive if the discretion of the Chair were invoked in such a way as to prevent the House from questioning or debating the decision of the Secretary of State…
What he does not say in that paragraph is at what time he thinks that this right to question should be exercised. Obviously it is conceivable that the right to question it after the event and after the case had been heard could well be given, whereas it might be thought desirable to

prevent that happening while the case was still before the court. I am not clear from the paragraph what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind.

Sir Elwyn Jones: What I have in mind is that it may well be too late if discussion of the matter is postponed until the court has made its decision. We are dealing with matters affecting the national economy and the safety of the State. These emergency situations are the very basis upon which the Secretary of State seeks to exercise the powers. They are problems of national crisis and they are of national importance. The action taken by the Minister is taken very quickly. It would be intolerable if Parliament, which, as I have said in my evidence, is the grand inquest of the nation, were silenced in such a situation and were unable to discuss matters of national importance coming before the court and, where the matters brought by the Minister on his ipse dixit and left to the court, are largely political.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am sorry. I cannot give way, merely because of the time factor.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich in his suggestion that what Parliament can properly discuss in connection with matters which outside Parliament could give rise to proceedings for contempt of court should be a point for Parliament itself to decide. This is not a matter for the judges. It is true that in contempt proceedings and in circumstances where the sub judice rule could apply the element of prejudice plays a part, but Parliament's duty to discuss issues of national importance seems to us to be absent from the issues which are within the terms of reference of the Phillimore Committee, a Committee of great standing for which I have high respect and before which I have had the privilege of giving evidence.
I regard it as wrong to give the impression that Parliament should be guided in these matters by outside judicial view, however eminent. These are Parliament's concerns and matters for the decision of Parliament alone.

11.51 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My instinctive feeling is that the timing of this change as proposed is a grievous mistake. I do not believe that the issues which have brought it about are the legal issues which were adumbrated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and by the ex-Attorney-General. I do not think that the move has arisen from the legal pundits, although they are making it respectable.
What we are discussing and deciding tonight comes as a result of the successful battle by the self-confessed and proud political militants who at any cost want to interfere with the procedures in the new Industrial Relations Court. That is the reason for the Motion being before us tonight. The fact that it is being made to appear respectable by the ex-Attorney-General and by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney-General, who is to wind up the debate, is not a true reflection of the situation.
I will tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-Attorney-General, who is greatly respected, that the political militants who have caused this to be brought about will run rings round the legal leaders with their purist approach to these matters. It is what is behind it and not these legal words which causes me considerable concern.
Nor do I think that we are being fair to Mr. Speaker. To leave with Mr. Speaker the amount of discretion which is to be given to him but which he did not have before is to impose a burden on him which, in the light of the pressures he will have put upon him, will make it almost impossible for him to discharge his duties in a way which will be satisfactory to himself. I know that what is being proposed has the approval of Mr. Speaker himself, according to his own evidence, given from his experience in the Chair.
I believe that this is a case in which we should save Mr. Speaker from himself. The real instigation here has nothing to do with the legal interpretation of sub judice in the general matters that come before the courts. If it were, then where is the evidence to justify this

change? Neither the right hon. and learned Gentleman nor my right hon. Friend produced any instances where justice had been denied as a result of the application of the Resolution of 23rd July, 1963. The sub judice position as laid out in that Resolution has worked. There has been no denial of justice. At least there is no evidence that anything of that nature has happened. One hypothetical case was suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to do with London Airport, but it was purely hypothetical. Nobody has alleged that the Resolution of 23rd July, 1963, prevented him from acting as he wanted.
I would hesitate before amending as quickly as it is proposed that we should, and in the absence of evidence supporting the need for change, a procedure which has passed the test of the last 10 years, when the only thing that is new is the setting up of the Industrial Relations Court and its workings.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are the real instigators of the proposed change—and it is a great victory for them and I congratulate them on it; they have defeated the Government—want to interfere with the part which the Industrial Relations Court can play in interpreting our legislation. I do not believe that it is good, in matters as sensitive as those which will arise before it, that the court should feel that Parliament is breathing down its neck whilst it is giving its objective and impartial attention to the words that we, Parliament, have used.
It is not good parliamentary practice that Parliament should always feel that it should put its oar in during any argument all along the line all the time. Parliament sets out the legislation. It sets out what it wants. It should then sit back and allow those whose job it is to investigate the issues arising so that they can give an objective ruling without being interfered with by Parliament. I am not at all impressed by my right hon. Friend's suggestion that because television, the radio and the newspapers can comment, it is wrong that Parliament should not be able to do the same thing. It is an insult to Parliament to make that comparison. We are bigger and more important than the television, the radio and the newspapers. They are not of the same significance. Their comments do not have the same


impact. They have not the same authority as Parliament has. Parliament has an authority greater than that of the courts themselves. It is one thing for a television commentator to make a comment while a matter is being examined, but it is quite another thing for Parliament, with its special powers, to do so.
I believe that the point made by my right hon. Friend that we have to be put on the same footing as television, radio and the Press is an insult to Parliament. It should be recognised that we are different and should show restraint whilst these matters are being examined by an impartial court. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has been a distinguished leader of the Bar and has a fine record, would be just as jealous of the independence, the objectivity and the freedom of the courts from interference even from Parliament as he seemed to be in defending, in this instance, Parliament itself.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I stand by the independence of the courts, of course, and nothing I have said has suggested otherwise.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am glad to hear that, and I am sure that the former Attorney-General would try to argue the case that I am now arguing and would do so with his heart in it. We owe it to the courts that Parliament will not be breathing down their necks whilst they are making these investigations.
The people who want to alter things are those who want to kill the Industrial Relations Court. They have not disguised that intention. They have been honourable about it. They think that the court is a mistake, an anachronism, and they want to kill it. I understand their point of view, although I do not agree with it. I believe that my right hon. Friends in the Government are aiding and abetting the militants on the other side in rushing into this change of procedure which I believe will perhaps carry with it the seeds of the disruption of Parliament itself.
One could not have a better example than what has gone on in the last month to show whether Parliament is being denied its rights. The general suggestion is that when these matters go to the courts they will drag on for months.

during which time Parliament will not be able to comment or play its part. That has not happened in the last month. Matters have been referred to the courts, decisions have been quick and objective, and the courts themselves have remedied the mistake, if there has been a mistake, of the lower court. That is how our system works.
Parliament is denying itself nothing by allowing the courts to sort out their own procedures and their own standing. While the courts are trying to give this decision, we have an authoritative Parliament, with people in it trying to destroy the legislation Parliament has passed, and if that happens on the parliamentary platform with its authority, it will hinder the court in its interpretation of the legislation we have sent to it.
Nor am I impressed by my right hon. Friend's point about some word or two having been used in haste which cannot be answered. If that is an argument, surely he had better reorganise Standing Order No. 9. If that sort of thing frightens him, that has been happening with Standing Order No. 9over the past weeks. Propaganda points have been put and not answered.
At no point did my right hon. Friend satisfy me that the alteration which he asks the House to accept is one which has been considered deeply enough and which has been examined on the question of timing with sufficient closeness to be truly in the nation's interest.
We have had a good example in the sorting out of the Bill of Rights, mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which does not interest the hon. Member for Tottenham(Mr. Atkinson). All the hon. Member for Tottenham is interested in is having a free rein to be destructive in the debate on Monday, to be able to say anything he likes, even before we have a decision from the House of Lords. If he had been able to do it under the sub judice rule, he would have done it last week and the week before, and that would have injured the Industrial Court's decision and the Appeal Court's decision on that.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but why does he insist on reducing all debates to the level of a Mecca ballroom? Why


does he go down to details of this kind? Surely it is imperative, if there is a debate on industrial relations on Monday, that we should discuss prices and incomes policies; the role of the shop steward; the docks and containers. We should be able to refer to all these things, which are important, and germane to the debate, so the hon. Member should recognise that we have an overwhelming desire to talk of real issues and not to be hamstrung by some of the suggestions which he has made.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Parliament on Monday should be free to talk of everything other than matters sent to the courts, until the courts have come to a decision. Parliament should restrain itself from discussing matters referred to the courts. The judiciary is an estate of the realm, like Parliament, and it should be strengthened. Because of the mood of militancy and irresponsibility exhibited in Parliament over recent months, I should like to feel that we have the stronger safeguard of the courts to see that we do not put this nation of curs into trouble.
This Motion tonight is brought about by the successful ploy of militants who wish to destroy legislation they do not like. The only laws they wish to support are their laws, not the laws of the country passed by anyone else. That is bad. If they can restrain themselves and win an election before they change the Laws, then I shall respect them, but not when they expect to rule from the Opposition benches.
I hope that the Government will take this Motion back and give it further thought. They are entitled to take it back because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that there has been no bipartisan approach on this. He says that half the Motionis not good enough for him. He said he wants that altered. I would take him at his word. I would take the whole Motion back. The last part of it does not strengthen it, as has been suggested. I would say that it weakens it. I would ask that we wait till we have the Phillimore Report, and till, from that report, we have the whole background to the whole question of contempt of court and the sub judice rule arising from that. We shall be better able to judge the matter in the light of that

detailed examination. I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there are any real differences between the other courts and matters affecting parliamentary comment. Our decision ought to come after, not before, that report.
I am asking my right hon. Friend to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman at his word and take back the Motion. It does not satisfy the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it does not satisfy me, and it does not satisfy my right hon. Friend, I think, for he did not seem very enthusiastic about it. I have seen him much more enthusiastic about other matters. I ask him to take it back for a time other than this, for at present I believe, there are tainted influences at work.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: I will criticise the Leader of the House for one thing, and that is the limited amount of time for this debate—and also for the length of time he took. Out of two hours, 50 minutes have been taken by the two Front Bench Speakers, though less by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) than by the Leader of the House. That has further restricted the amount of time for back benchers to speak.
I recognise the sincerity of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), of course; we all do. But it is not the fault of this side of the House that the present situation has arisen. It was not we on this side who wished to drag the trade unions into the courts. We spent hours and hours, through the night, opposing the Industrial Relations Bill. One of the reasons we opposed it is now clear before us. So much have politics and the politics of trade unions been drawn into the courts that we have to change, as the hon. Member quite rightly said, the sub judice rule of long standing.
The hon. Member also said that nobody had given an example of the necessity for changing this rule. I should like, very briefly, to give him one. I should like to give him one because it is also one which, strangely enough, will not be covered by this Motion, although it covers ministerial decision, the national


economy, public order and "the essentials of life"—whatever they are.
In my constituency I have a university. Some years ago it was decided to give that university a teaching hospital, for reasons which were undoubtedly desirable for the whole community, because it would assist in increasing the number of doctors, and that is sorely needed in this country, and would also raise the level of medical practice in and around Nottingham, which happens to have the lowest number of doctors of any city in the United Kingdom. The site chosen was that of a certain firm of builders who, in local opinion, procrastinated, and who procrastinated by the remarkable process of challenging a compulsory purchase order before the courts of law. When they did not win their case they appealed it to the Court of Appeal, altogether a process which delayed the building of that teaching hospital for some three years.
Without any desire to prejudice the merits of the case, it would have been highly desirable if I, or any Member of this House, had been able to bring before the appropriate Minister the suggestion that he should point out to the courts of law that a speedy decision in the case was of national importance, as certainly it was of local importance.
It does not matter what decision was reached. If the court had held—it did not—that the firm was entitled to more compensation, well and good. The merits in that respect need not be mentioned in the House. What happened was that for the costs of a legal case the firm was obtaining three years' extra tenure of land, which presumably was for its convenience. For that fairly considerable but not immense sum in relation to the values of land and property these days, the firm obtained that advantage. I am not sure whether a case such as the Chobham Farm case would be covered by the Motion. I have no doubt that the Attorney-General will tell us whether it is.
I should also like to ask the Attorney-General what is the position of people reporting the proceedings of the House. The Leader of the House mentioned the Phillimore Report on contempt. I had the honour to sit under the late Lord Donovan on the Committee of this House that discussed the law of defamation in

relation to the House's business. The BBC, for example, is not in the case of defamation protected in reporting our proceedings in the way that the Press is protected. We are absolutely protected, and the Press has a certain quite substantial protection in reporting something said on the Floor of the House which if said outside would be defamatory.
Supposing, under the terms of the Motion, something is said in the House which if said outside would be contempt of court. We are protected by the Bill of Rights mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South. But are the people who report it protected? If someone from the Press or the broadcasting authorities report what we say, is he committing contempt of court? Whereas he is protected against defamation, I know of no law which gives him protection from possible contempt of court.
We shall land ourselves in a silly position if when we comment on actions in, say, the Industrial Relations Court, the gentlemen in the Gallery do their job and are then told by their newspaper lawyers that the comments cannot be reported. Have the Government considered this?
If there is to be any broadcasting of the proceedings of the House, the Leader of the House will have to legislate on the peculiar position of the BBC. He will have to introduce a brief, no doubt uncontroversial, Bill in relation to defamation. Is it necessary for him also to legislate on contempt of court?

12.13 a.m.

Sir Robin Turton: My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) said that he was anxious to save you from yourself, Mr. Speaker, and he wondered why this question had arisen. I remind you that on 20th April you said you would welcome an inquiry by the Select Committee of Procedure into this matter because of the changed circumstances since 1963. It was on the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the Select Committee on Procedure looked into the matter. I feel that my hon. Friend, with his great respect for the courts and his love of Parliament, has forgotten the history of Parliament on this sub judice convention in civil cases.
So far as I know—we asked for all the evidence that was available—there were only two civil cases in respect of which the sub judice convention had been applied to proceedings in Parliament up to 1963. One was an election court case in 1898 at Grimsby, which was of a different nature from most civil cases. The other was the Tradair case in 1961, which was an action for defamation. Therefore, despite all the talk about great change and the revolutionary report of my Select Committee, in effect, what we are doing is establishing what have been the governing rules of successive Speakers, up to the Resolution of 1963, on matters before civil courts—no more, no less.
I should like to express my gratitude to the Leader of the House for the expedition with which he has reached decisions on our report. At the same time, I am concerned that the partial acceptance of our report may give rise to certain misunderstandings. Although I have been disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, I have a certain sympathy with his attitude in asking why all this is directed at the Industrial Relations Court. It is, indeed, a much wider matter. We are discussing only Part VIII of the Industrial Relations Act. I mention that lest we give rise to certain misunderstandings outside.
On Tuesday last my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said:
…it would be premature to accept the wider recommendations of the Select Committee in respect of proceedings in the civil courts generally until the report of the Phillimore Committee has been received."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 1191.]
Whilst I appreciate my right hon. Friend's caution in this matter, it would be most unfortunate if his caution led the public in general to believe that the sub judice convention has a close connection with proceedings for contempt of court.
I remind the House of paragraph 7 of the Select Committee's Report, where we tried to make it clear what the distinction was between the sub judice convention—only the convention, because Mr. Speaker's discretion is paramount in this matter and cannot be over-ruled—and contempt of court proceedings. We said:
The essential difference between the convention and contempt of court is that the former is imposed voluntarily by Parliament

upon itself and exercised subject to the discretion of the Chair, with the object of forestalling prejudice of proceedings in the courts. The courts of law on the other hand protect themselves from prejudicial comment outside Parliament by the exercise post hoc of their powers to punish contempts.
That means that the media at present have liberty to comment upon matters sub judice unless that comment flagrantly prejudices proceedings in court, whilst the House is estopped under the 1963 Resolution from any comment, subject to the Speaker's discretion, one a case has been set down for trial in a civil court. The 1963 Resolution changed what had been the practice of Speakers in the House prior to that date.
We have recommended that actions for defamation should be governed by the same rules as criminal cases but that in the remainder of civil cases the convention should apply only when there is a
real and substantial danger of prejudice
to the courts. Bearing in mind the rule as to ministerial responsibility, it is difficult to see how debate and Questions on civil proceedings that come before the courts can be involved in this House unless there is some form of ministerial intervention.
It is very important that where a Minister intervenes this House should be able to challenge his action, unless it would prejudice the proceedings by doing so. This is why I am disturbed by the limit in the Motion to Part VIII of the Industrial Relations Act. Ministers can also make applications under Part II, Part III and Part IX, and unless we can amend the Motion, or you, Mr. Speaker are able to use your wise judgment in interpretation, we shall have a practice for one part of the Act but not for the other parts.
I take a case which the House will remember—Mr. Speaker King's ruling on the Mersey Docks and Harbour case. It was clear directly he made that ruling that there was something wrong with the 1963 Resolution. You, Mr. Speaker, wisely and with perhaps rather greater clarity, have interpreted his ruling in that case. I hope that, following this Motion, we shall not have this distinction between one part of the Industrial Relations Act—Part VIII—and the rest of the ministerial applications. As my right hon. Friend said, ministerial involvement has grown with the passing of the years.
I remind the House of what I thought was your very clear exposition, Mr. Speaker, of the position when you gave evidence to the Committee on 23rd May. Your statement then was so wise and clear that I want to read it in full, and will sacrifice the rest of my time to it. Answering Question No. 184, you said:
I think it is quite clear that there ought to be a sub judice rule or convention, certainly with regard to criminal cases. I think there are certain types of civil case, like actions for defamation of character, where one can see the same sort of thing applying; and I would think there that the rule or the convention ought to exist, only to be relaxed at the discretion of the Speaker. When one comes to wider issues such as those that we have been discussing, I think my present general view is that the rule ought to be invoked only at the discretion of the Speaker, that the general proposition ought to be that matters of general interest are discussable in the House of Commons unless the Speaker decides with regard to a particular issue or particular matter that he ought to invoke the rule. In other words, the presumption ought to be a different way. The presumption should be for discussion rather than against it.
I hope that, whatever Motion we pass tonight, nothing will in any way fetter your discretion in applying the convention on those terms, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot see how any report by any outside committee, such as the Phillimore Committee, can make any alteration of the wise shift of onus between the two types of case. After all, it is vital that this should be the Parliament of the nation. This is not a party matter, it is a House of Commons matter. I disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones). I think it is right that Mr.Speaker must always consider whether raising a matter in this House that is actually to be decided by the courts—such as the length of the cooling-off period—is prejudicial to the proceedings. That is why that provision came into our report. In general my view is that it is vital that we get the 1963 Resolution out of the way and show that Parliament is the supreme forum in which we can consider matters of interest to the nation, and where ministerial responsibility can be challenged. We do not wish to be fettered in our discussions.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton

(Sir Robin Turton) for his wise words. They are in contrast to those of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) whom we all regard as a delightful dinosaur, an attractive man but certainly living in the past and not looking at the realities of the situation. I am glad that the House has recalled the situation that arose with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board because I was the Member who made the Standing Order No. 9 application which was granted by Mr. Speaker King. The next day we found that if he had not ruled as he did we should have been in an impossible situation. It will be seen that in that debate no one took advantage of the situation, no one tried to raise issues not directly applicable to the point at issue and the ministerial responsibility that arose.
The House rose above the outside influences and dealt directly with the realities of the matter which were of great importance, not only to the people of Merseyside, but to the people of the country. In particular this was of great importance to the port of Liverpool. It was therefore something to be discussed seriously in this House, which was the only place where it could be discussed at any length properly.
If we turn to the present situation with the Industrial Relations Act we find under Part VIII dealing with emergency procedures:
The Secretary of State may apply to the Industrial Court for an order under the next following section.
In that Section the order can be applied for on certain grounds, for example if the industrial actions are likely:

"(a) to be gravely injurious to the national economy, to imperil national security or to create a serious risk of public disorder;
(b) to endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons"

and so on. These questions involve political judgment. The House has a right to query and discuss whether the Minister has taken the right decision, whether it was a premature move and whether there were alternative avenues open to him.
It is not a question of the militants on this side of the House who object to the Industrial Relations Act trying to get rid of it or to get round it or that sort of nonsense. We made our position clear as


a party. We do not like the Act. The question of free parliamentary debate is much more important. That is what we are concerned with. When the Minister made the application we wished to question whether it was right. We were rightly informed by Mr. Speaker that as matters stood we could not pursue the point because of the sub judice rule. That was an impossible situation for the House to be in. But it is not just a question of the restriction on our right to debate these matters. We are the voice of the nation, and, in effect, the whole nation is being restricted because of the limitations on us. That is the essence of the argument.
I welcome the Motion. I do not think it goes far enough, but if there were a vote on it, although I should have liked to see it amended, I would vote for it because what it suggests is the right course. I agree with what has been said about Mr. Speaker. The words of Mr. Speaker which have been quoted were very apt and absolutely correct. We know that there is a case for the sub judice rule operating in certain criminal and civil cases, and it would be wrong for us to debate, to table Motions or to become involved in any way in those cases; it would do far more harm than good. It is quite right that in those cases the sub judice rule should operate. But there is the case which has been admirably argued by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton—much better argued than I could have argued it—and which I support, that there are cases of ministerial responsibility in which this House must have the right to debate, to table Motions, to ask Questions and to deal with the policy matters involved.
I come strictly to the question of the Industrial Relations Act and the effect it is having, not on the House, but on the Press and television and radio. This is what I hope the Government will consider further. Free comment on certain aspects of industrial disputes is being restricted in the Press. I have here an obscure journal called "Socialist Worker". There is a very interesting article in it—I do not know whether it is right or wrong—headed
The press quietly hides its gag".
It was written by Laurie Flynn. I shall not develop that at any length except

to say that he says that there was a meeting with Sir John Donaldson at the NIRC offices in Chancery Lane on Thursday, 8th June, when the industrial correspondents were brought to the offices and Sir John Donaldson gave them a briefing on what they could not do and could not comment upon, and what they could. That was not made as a judgment in the court, explaining the situation; it was done behind locked doors. That is a serious matter.
Mr. Flynn says:
But if there was a danger of creating a snowball effect by selective reporting of militant calls to defy NIRC orders, said Donaldson, then the court would quietly tell the newspaper concerned that it was unhappy with the way things were going and ask for co-operation.
I regard that as a very serious matter. I regard it as an extension of gagging not of ourselves but of free expression and discussion in the country. On that basis, I hope that the Government will equally consider this situation and that when the Phillimore Committee's report is published we shall discuss the whole question of contempt in relation to the Industrial Relations Board and free expression by the Press in terms of industrial disputes.

12.36 a.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I shall be very brief. I must utter one word of warning in this discussion. However much we may desire to do so, I think that we can attempt to go too far in trying to protect Mr. Speaker—to such an extent that virtually he does not have to exercise his judgment but merely has to abide by rules.
Looking at the evidence, it is obvious that Mr. Speaker recognises this. I should think that his evidence to the Committee must have been of immense assistance to it, and we ought to express our gratitude to Mr. Speaker for what he said on that occasion.
One of the awful charges that we put upon anybody whom we drag to the Chair on appointing him as a new Speaker is to expect him, inevitably, to exercise his judgment, and there are certain things for which we cannot lay down laws to avoid his having to do that. There have been moments in this discussion


when I have sensed that certain hon. Members thought that we should try to safeguard Mr. Speaker as much as possible against ever having to exercise his judgment. I believe that it is unavoidable that he should have to do so.
One reason why I asked the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) the question I put to him was that timing is sometimes the essence of these matters. I adhere as strongly as he does to the doctrine that the House must, wherever possible, have the right to challenge the exercise of power by the executive. But the right hon. and learned Member did not allow me to intervene on the question of timing.
There will be some occasions when it will be sensible, fully legitimate and thoroughly in the public interest to question—after the court has heard the case—why the Government of the day took a certain action. I would have less concern about the prospect of this having to be post hoc rather than in advance of the case's being heard were it not for the ruling set out in paragraph 2 of the Select Committee's Report, where Lord Denning makes it very clear that in so far as he is concerned there will be no question of Government, executive or even Parliament interfering with the administration of justice by the courts. That is of huge importance in this context. Whether or not we like the introduction of the Industrial Relations Act, surely the best chance it has of being operated successfully is if we try to take out of industrial disputes, so far as we possibly can, the political overtones, and let the Act be administered, in so far as is possible, by the judiciary and the courts—

Mr. Stanley Orme: It is a political Act.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: —in such a way that the legality all the way through is shown to be paramount.
The Motion is somewhat contradictory in that we appear at one moment, in the first paragraph, to be releasing Mr. Speaker from having to exercise the old Resolution of 23rd July, 1963, and in the next breath we are saying that the

Chair must then exercise very considerable discretion if it appears that
a real and subsantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings
might arise.
It is obviously highly desirable that we should maintain at least the principle of the Resolution of 1963—and I think that that is pre-dated by a number of other conventions—and that we must try to avoid any prejudice to the proceedings before any of our courts. But the moment we place upon Mr. Speaker the obligation of using his discretion in this matter, especially when it concerns the Industrial Relations Act, we are inevitably placing him in a position in which he must adjudicate as to the political content that is involved because of the court being of the kind it is.
I fully share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) about the distinction between contempt of court and the conventions that we set upon ourselves. I express my gratitude for the immense amount of thought and work he has put into the preparation of the report. I fully accept his distinction there. It is not in the least necessary to wait for Phillimore. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) about that. But the Motion is making Mr. Speaker's position even more difficult to interpret than it was under the 1963 Resolution.
This is a House of Commons matter, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was kind enough to assure me that the Government regarded it as that. My right hon. Friend would be wise not to press the Motion but to think more about it. The House has had little time to ponder on this matter. By passing the Motion we can all too easily put Mr. Speaker in a more difficult position than he is already in. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider withdrawing the Motion.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I agree entirely with what the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said about the desirability of not confining too closely your discretion, Mr. Speaker. But I suggest to the hon. Member that the gravamen of criticism of the 1963 Resolution in relation to the sort of


matter with which we are dealing tonight is that indeed it did confine the discretion of Mr. Speaker much too closely. It is because we are dealing with situations which were not envisaged by those who framed that Resolution, even though circumstances might have existed at that time, that we support entirely the first part, at any rate, of the Motion.
The hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely referred also to the question of timing. His hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) said that it was desirable that we ought not to breathe down the necks of the court. Of course we recognise the desirability that the House should not appear in any way to dictate to the courts what they should do, to presume upon their function, which is that of deciding issues between parties. But we must ask whether that principle is one which will prevent the House from debating matters which are
a threat to national security, the national economy or public order.
Surely these are the very matters which the House must discuss if it is to do its duty to the public and it cannot be inhibited from doing that duty simply because at the same time either a Minister or a private person has brought proceedings before a court upon which the court will consider evidence which is concerned with these very matters.

Mr. Ivor Sfanbrook: Mr. Ivor Sfanbrook (Orpington)rose—

Mr. Silkin: I would give way if I could but I must give the Attorney-General time to reply. I am sorry. We say therefore that it is right to review the old rule and to take account of these new factors which were not in the mind of Parliament in 1963. We agree very much with what was said so eloquently by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). We perhaps criticised some part of the report but let me assure him that those criticisms were of detail only and that we accept the general tenor of his report with gratitude.
Your observations, Mr. Speaker, which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, at Question 184, are observations with which we, too, find ourselves very much in agreement. They are very much the basis of the wording which my right hon.

and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) suggested as an alternative form of wording to paragraph 2 of the Motion. We therefore ask the Minister or the Attorney-General to give very serious consideration to what my right hon. and learned Friend said about paragraph 2 and to the views of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. The paragraph directs the Chair to subordinate matters of national importance to questions of danger of prejudice of proceedings. We adhere most strongly to the view expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend that where there is a conflict between matters of national security, the national economy and public order, on the one side, and what might be the prejudice of a private citizen, however undesirable that prejudice, on the other, then the right and duty of Parliament to debate matters of national interest must be paramount. That is what our proposed paragraph (2) would say.
We want to see the Motion accepted by the House, because we regard paragraph (1) as most important. But I ask the Attorney-General seriously to reconsider the second paragraph. If he is unable to give an undertaking to do that, we on this side propose to put down as soon as we can a Motion for further discussion which incorporates an amendment in some such terms as those which my right hon. and learned Friend has proposed, and we shall seek the earliest possible opportunity to debate it.

12.50 a.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The report has been marked by the distinguished leadership of the Select Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), and the debate has been marked by a most distinguished speech by him also.
I have a very short time in which to reply to the debate. I have heard what the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said about how he and his hon. Friends may return to the matter, but I cannot accede to the request that he made at the end of his speech.
There is not a Member who would disagree with the statement of the absolute power and rights of Parliament. It has


that power and those rights, and it exercises them to debate and discuss, to challenge, to probe and to legislate. It is a right which is paramount over the right of any other person or institution. But because it has this power and this strength Parliament is very well aware that it gives to other institutions duties to perform—duties that are very important in the lives of the citizens of the State and that gives them remedies for the protection of their liberties. It takes from its own power to give the court those tasks. It has always been its objective not to prejudice that important function in any way by what it does here. But of course there are matters of over-riding national security or national importance which rest with the House to be debated here.
The sub judice convention has no effect on legislation. When the House is legislating it matters not what is before the courts. There has never been any diminution of the House's power to legislate by adopting any convention.
The Motion accepts and recommends the heart of what the Select Committee proposed. The Committee concentrated on what the House has recently shown over the past years to be urgent questions. It is a matter not merely of the Industrial Relations Act but the increased participation of Ministers as parties to suits in matters such as planning and the exercise of powers in health and housing questions. Parliament felt concern lest it denied itself the liberty to debate and probe ministerial decisions on issues of national importance.
The Select Committee may well be right to make a wide recommendation with regard to civil actions generally. But I repeat that it might be premature to decide that matter now. What matters is that Parliament should retain its right to probe a ministerial decision when a Minister is a party in a civil action and the court has no power to challenge it. Therefore, that is what is proposed in the Motion.
The Committee recommended that Parliament should retain that freedom to question the Minister in all cases. It arises when in legislation there appears the well-known phrase "Where it appears to the Minister" or, "Where a Minister has reasonable cause to believe" and so on. All these are matters which should

be probed, and what is set out in the Motion follows the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure.
With regard to the deliberations of the Phillimore Committee, though contempt is not the same as the sub judice convention, the principles and procedures of contempt of court and the sub judice convention are akin, because the courts and Parliament have the same objectives. They have the same objectives, because the court says that it will protect itself and will punish those who do acts tending to interfere with the administration of justice. Parliament says that, subject to its over-riding powers, it does not want the legislature to interfere with the trial of issues which it has handed to the courts to decide.
Exactly what tends to prejudice a trial? It is not merely prejudicing the court itself—that means the judge and jury or in civil actions the judge. What prejudices a witness or a party is a matter which requires examination; and it is being given close examination by the Phillimore Committee.
One case has been brought to my attention as Attorney-General of a civil action to be tried by a judge alone. There has been some publication, with the possibility of prejudice to the parties' reaching a compromise. Those are the sorts of matter on which, clearly, the courts want advice as to what would tend to prejudice. I should have thought that it was in the interests of Parliament to be able to see what it is that would tend to prejudice. Therefore, it is surely wise and sensible to await the results of the deliberations of the Phillimore Committee.
That is why the Motion goes to the heart of the Procedure Committee's recommendations. It retains the discretion of the Chair. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said so clearly, it must be the Chair which ultimately makes the decision. The Motion says that
reference may be made in Questions, Motions or debate to matters awaiting or under adjudication in all civil courts, including the National Industrial Relations Court, insofar as such matters relate to a Ministerial decision which cannot be challenged in court except on grounds of misdirection or bad faith, or concern issues of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life".


That, as my right hon. Friend said, is taken from the Emergency Powers Act. Therefore, subject to the discretion of the Chair, these matters will be permitted to be debated.
Paragraph (2) of the Motion concerns the discretion of the Chair. The Chair asked for guidelines. Guidelines are given—
that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings".
I therefore invite the House to say that the Motion sets out what the Procedure Committee has had in mind and what should be approved by the House, retaining for a little longer for further consideration by the Phillimore Committee the question of those civil actions which do not concern Ministers or matters of national importance.

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Mr. Walter Clegg): The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Mr. Walter Clegg) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Resolved,
That—
(1) no withstanding the Resolution of 23rd July, 1963, and subject to the discretion of the Chair reference may be made in Questions, Motions or debate to matters awaiting or under adjudication in all civil courts, including the National Industrial Relations Court, insofar as such matters relate to a Ministerial decision which cannot be challenged in court except on grounds of misdirection or bad faith, or concern issues of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life;
(2) in exercising its discretion the Chair should not allow reference to such matters if it appears that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings; and should have regard to the considerations set out in Paragraphs 25 to 28 of the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

Orders of the Day — CLAYTON GIRLS SCHOOL, MANCHESTER

1.1 a.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am grateful for the opportunity of making what could rightly be interpreted as an eleventh hour plea to defer the closing of the Clayton Secondary School for Girls in Manchester, in my constituency, until at least such time as the Secretary of State for Education and Science authorises the building of the promised secondary comprehensive school to serve the Beswick, Bradford and Clayton areas of Manchester.
The Secretary of State's decision to endorse the closing of the school in effect reverses her predecessor's decision in specifically excluding the proposed closing of the school from the 1965 re-organisation of secondary school education in Manchester. I trust that the Minister will spell out in detail the Secretary of State's justification for the decision which she has now taken. If the school closes, it will in effect bring to an end a school which has contributed much to community and cultural life in the Clayton area of Manchester.
Regrettably, it is a decision which appears to owe more to administrative convenience than to any real concern for the future well being of the girls concerned. How else are we to interpret this decision when a report presented to the Manchester Education Committee recently warned in the following terms of some of the consequences which will follow:
One of the difficulties about closing Clayton Girls is that the alternative schools are not in general easily accessible. It is probable that many of the girls will choose Wright Robinson High School for Girls; while others may prefer the Manchester Central High School for Girls, it will be seen from the statistics that neither of these schools has many vacant places in the year groups in question.
In spite of this warning, the Manchester Education Committee went ahead with its proposal to close this school.
The closing of the school will inevitably mean added costs for the parents of the girls concerned—on added travelling, uniform, and school meals costs—which are bound to bear heavily on the family budgets of my constituents. It could mean real hardship, particularly for the low income families.
I should explain that Clayton is a quiet residential area of Manchester, predominantly terraced and council houses, unlike the south side of the city where Manchester City Council has been generous and imaginative in providing community amenities. Clayton, like Openshaw, has few, if any, of what we regard as the essentials for community life. It has neither library nor swimming pools, nor even, as yet, a youth centre, and yet it is proposed that we should close the sole remaining secondary school in the locality. Is not this the reason why at a recent meeting at the school 400 parents were unanimous in their opposition to closure?
My constituents' petitions and representations have so far, regrettably, fallen on deaf ears. Closure could not have come at a worse time for the girls. The splendid headmistress and dedicated staff were at last succeeding in their endeavours to persuade girls at the school to stay on beyond the normal 15-year-old leaving age and had succeeded in establishing a really good fifth year and even a small sixth year. The introduction of GCE courses was envisaged, but, alas, the proposed closure has put the proposed plans in jeopardy.
The consequence of the decision now taken is that 43 girls left at Easter, and goodness knows what will be the effect of the decision on the 16 girls in the current fourth year, who have just begun two-year courses which are scheduled to terminate in July, 1973. I hope that the Minister will agree tonight that the academic future of the girls is of vital concern.
Finally, I deal with one of the justifications advanced by Manchester Education Committee for the closing of the school; namely the impending retirement of the headmistress, Miss Smith, who during her headship has immeasurably improved the standard of the school and done so much to encourage the work of the girls and their school life. It is said that her resignation has to some extent prompted the decision to close. Following conversations with her yesterday, I have reason to believe that if the Minister heeds my plea tonight she in turn would be prepared to reconsider her decision to retire. Miss Smith, as with so many others,

believes that this school has helped and is helping to shape the lives of the girls concerned and at the same time is making a positive contribution to community life.
I hope and trust that this evening the Minister will ignore his departmental brief. I am well aware of the precedents which have been established in the past, but I hope that this evening he will establish a new precedent and, as I have said, ignore his departmental brief and allow the head and her dedicated staff at Clayton Secondary School for Girls to get on with the job they have done so well so far.

1.10 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): If there were any hon. Members of this House able to entice me away from a departmental brief I am sure that the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) would certainly be one of them, and in the forefront of those who could do so. I hope he will find by the time I have finished that I have attempted to deal with this matter as sympathetically as may be, not only because I fully understand how he personally feels about it, and I know how assiduously he has in this as in other matters represented his constituents' point of view, but also because I know how strongly some of them feel about the matter.
This is not an easy decision. I would like to set out as fully as I can in the short time both of us have available the background considerations which led my right hon. Friend to make her decision. The first thing I must say in all friendliness to the hon. Member is that it is a decision. It would be fair neither to him nor to his constituents to give any indication other than that a decision has been made. The proper and appropriate procedures were followed by the Manchester Local Education Authority, and after due and careful consideration of them all, and of the objections, my right hon. Friend gave her decision. If she were in this or any other matters—indeed, if she had power in this and other matters—to vary a decision entered into, I think it would make administration extremely difficult


for those in the local authorities concerned.
The hon. Gentleman started by very fairly referring to the refusal of the then Government in 1965 to sanction the closure of the school under the then proposed reorganisation arrangements. This was, at that time, because among other things, the reorganisation would have meant using two-tier schools in two sets of premises. The proposed 11 to 14 and 14-plus schools to which Clayton girls would have gone under the former proposal involved six sets of unsatisfactory premises and considerable expenditure on those premises. It was thought by the then Secretary of State that parental choice of school would be too restricted if it were confined to the two-tier schools, and it was thought then that the journey along east Manchester would not fit in with bus routes, and so on. This is not doing justice to the case, but this is putting it very briefly.
I would say to the hon. Member that I would think there to be some significant differences in 1972, and these are some of the reasons which led my right hon. Friend to make her decision.
First of all, the five alternative high schools are larger than Clayton. Clayton, as the hon. Member will know, has no prospect of more than about 200 pupils. The five alternative high schools have space for extra pupils and can offer more educational opportunities and more specialisations. To say this is not to be critical of Clayton. I just want to put the facts to the hon. Gentleman. Two of the schools are building up sixth forms, including the Central High Girls School, and two have been provided since 1965. The hon. Member will remember—and I think this is important in this context—that demand for the boys school in Clayton fell, so that it was closed in 1971 without objection. That is the first reason.
The second reason is this. It is the Secretary of State's aim, as soon as resources allow, to replace the old buildings. But they, as well as the more recent ones—and again I say this without criticism of Clayton—have more facilities than Clayton, which is on one floor of an old building shared by a primary school and is on a very restricted site.

Third, the parents as a result of this have a choice of five larger alternative high schools, and the authority has told me that it hopes to give the parents first-choice preference over others.
The authority has considered carefully the transport arrangements for the girls from Clayton. The routes to be used are better than the ones in the 1965 proposal, which was turned down, and the authority has been able to show that no journey need take more than half an hour. The authority is hoping to provide a small bus to the Wright Robinson High School, and will also consider sympathetically help with bus fares for poorer families.
I have already referred to the small size of the school and to the poor facilities, making it quite clear that I am not being critical of the school in saying this. Since we are speaking in 1972, the raising of the school leaving age is a factor. It will obviously make the situation even worse. There is no scope for an extra building on the site because it is shared with a primary school.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the position of the headmistress, and I am happy to join him unreservedly in his tribute to the work of Miss Smith. She has made a significant contribution to the quality and achievements of the school, but there lies no doubt in my right hon. Friend's mind that in the long term the girls at Clayton will have much greater educational opportunities elsewhere, with the advantage of larger numbers and bigger premises. Whilst an important factor in the case was Miss Smith's impending retirement, I naturally take note of what the hon. Gentleman said. It was one of the factors, and I have sought to set out the others.
I understand that all the boys in the Clayton area and four out of every seven girls from the Clayton area already opt for the other high schools even in the situation as it is at present. In the time at my disposal I can only deal with the matter in shorthand terms. I am anxious to assure the hon. Gentleman that this was not just an administratively convenient solution which was rubber-stamped by my right hon. Friend. As in all such cases, the most careful con-


side ration was given to the proposals of the local education authority. In setting out shortly the considerations which were in my right hon. Friend's mind, I hope that I have shown that in making her decision she had in mind the human
considerations which the hon. Gentleman asked her to have in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past One o'clock.